Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5267_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
5 inattentiv$.tw.
6 adhd.tw.
7 addh.tw.
8 ad hd.tw.
9 ad??hd.tw.
10 (attenti$ adj3 deficit$).tw.
11 hyperactiv$.mp.
12 (hyper adj1 activ$).tw.
13 hyperkin$.mp.
14 (hyper adj1 kin$).tw.
15 hkd.tw.
16 overactiv$.tw. not overactive bladder$.ti.
17 (over adj1 activ$).tw. not overactive bladder$.ti.
18 (minimal adj1 brain).tw.
19 or/1–18
2. Systematic review search filter
20 exp meta analysis/or exp systematic review/or exp literature review/or exp
literature searching/or exp cochrane library/or exp review literature/
21 ((systematic or quantitative or methodologic$) adj5 (overview$ or
review$)).mp.
22 (metaanaly$ or meta analy$).mp.
23 (research adj (review$ or integration)).mp.
24 reference list$.ab.
25 bibliograph$.ab.
26 published studies.ab.
27 relevant journals.ab.
28 selection criteria.ab.
29 (data adj (extraction or synthesis)).ab.
30 (handsearch$ or ((hand or manual) adj search$)).ti,ab.
31 (mantel haenszel or peto or dersimonian or der simonian).ti,ab.
Appendix 8
449
Appendix 8
450
32 (fixed effect$ or random effect$).ti,ab.
33 ((bids or cochrane or index medicus or isi citation or psyclit or psychlit or
scisearch or science citation or (web adj2 science)) and review$).mp.
34 (systematic$ or meta$).pt.
35 or/20–34
36 and/19, 35
APPENDIX 9:
CLINICAL STUDY INFORMATION DATABASE
Appendix 9
451
Appendix 9
452
APPENDIX 10:
QUALITY CHECKLISTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC
STUDIES, CLINICAL STUDIES AND REVIEWS
The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using dimensions adapted
from SIGN (SIGN, 2001). SIGN originally adapted its quality criteria from checklists
developed in Australia (Liddel et al., 1996). Both groups reportedly undertook exten-
sive development and validation procedures when creating their quality criteria. For
information about how to use these checklists please see The Guidelines Manual
56
(NICE, 2006c).
Appendix 10
453
Quality checklist for a systematic review or meta-analysis
Study ID:
Guideline topic: Key question no:
Checklist completed by:
SECTION 1: INTERNAL VALIDITY
In a well-conducted systematic In this study this criterion is: (Circle
review: one option for each question)
1.1 The study addresses an Well covered Not addressed
appropriate and clearly focused Adequately addressed Not reported
question. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.2 A description of the methodology Well covered Not addressed
used is included. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.3 The literature search is Well covered Not addressed
sufficiently rigorous to identify Adequately addressed Not reported
all the relevant studies. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.4 Study quality is assessed and Well covered Not addressed
taken into account. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.5 There are enough similarities Well covered Not addressed
between the studies selected to Adequately addressed Not reported
make combining them reasonable. Poorly addressed Not applicable
56
Available from: www.nice.org.uk
Appendix 10
454
SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDY
2.1 How well was the study done to
minimise bias? Code , or –
Quality checklist for an RCT
Study ID:
Guideline topic: Key question no:
Checklist completed by:
SECTION 1: INTERNAL VALIDITY
In a well-conducted RCT study: In this study this criterion is: (Circle
one option for each question)
1.1 The study addresses an Well covered Not addressed
appropriate and clearly focused Adequately addressed Not reported
question. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.2 The assignment of subjects to Well covered Not addressed
treatment groups is randomised. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.3 An adequate concealment Well covered Not addressed
method is used. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.4 Subjects and investigators are Well covered Not addressed
kept ‘blind’ about treatment Adequately addressed Not reported
allocation. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.5 The treatment and control groups Well covered Not addressed
are similar at the start of the trial. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.6 The only difference between Well covered Not addressed
groups is the treatment under Adequately addressed Not reported
investigation. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.7 All relevant outcomes are Well covered Not addressed
measured in a standard, valid Adequately addressed Not reported
and reliable way. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.8 What percentage of the
individuals or clusters recruited
into each treatment arm of the
study dropped out before the
study was completed?
1.9 All the subjects are analysed in Well covered Not addressed
the groups to which they were Adequately addressed Not reported
randomly allocated (often referred Poorly addressed Not applicable
to as intention-to-treat analysis).
1.10 Where the study is carried out at Well covered Not addressed
more than one site, results are Adequately addressed Not reported
comparable for all sites. Poorly addressed Not applicable
SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDY
2.1 How well was the study done
to minimise bias?
Code , or –
Quality checklist for a cohort study
57
Study ID: Relevant questions:
Guideline topic:
Checklist completed by:
SECTION 1: INTERNAL VALIDITY
In a well conducted cohort study: In this study the criterion is: (Circle
one option for each question)
1.1 The study addresses an Well covered Not addressed
appropriate and clearly Adequately addressed Not reported
focused question. Poorly addressed Not applicable
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS
1.2 The two groups being studied Well covered Not addressed
are selected from source Adequately addressed Not reported
populations that are comparable Poorly addressed Not applicable
in all respects other than the
factor under investigation.
1.3 The study indicates how many Well covered Not addressed
of the people asked to take part Adequately addressed Not reported
did so, in each of the groups Poorly addressed Not applicable
being studied.
57
A cohort study can be defined as a retrospective or prospective follow-up study. Groups of individuals
are defined on the basis of the presence or absence of exposure to a suspected risk factor or intervention.
This checklist is not appropriate for assessing uncontrolled studies (for example, a case series where there
is no comparison [control] group of patients).
Appendix 10
455
Appendix 10
456
1.4 The likelihood that some eligible Well covered Not addressed
subjects might have the outcome Adequately addressed Not reported
at the time of enrolment is Poorly addressed Not applicable
assessed and taken into account
in the analysis.
1.5 What percentage of individuals
or clusters recruited into each
arm of the study dropped out
before the study was completed?
1.6 Comparison is made between Well covered Not addressed
full participants and those lost Adequately addressed Not reported
to follow-up, by exposure status. Poorly addressed Not applicable
ASSESSMENT
1.7 The outcomes are clearly defined. Well covered Not addressed
Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.8 The assessment of outcome is Well covered Not addressed
made blind to exposure status. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.9 Where blinding was not possible, Well covered Not addressed
there is some recognition that Adequately addressed Not reported
knowledge of exposure status Poorly addressed Not applicable
could have influenced the
assessment of outcome.
1.10
The measure of assessment of Well covered Not addressed
exposure is reliable. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.11 Evidence from other sources is Well covered Not addressed
used to demonstrate that the Adequately addressed Not reported
method of outcome assessment is Poorly addressed Not applicable
valid and reliable.
1.12 Exposure level or prognostic Well covered Not addressed
factor is assessed more than once. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
CONFOUNDING
1.13 The main potential confounders Well covered Not addressed
are identified and taken into Adequately addressed Not reported
account in the design and analysis. Poorly addressed Not applicable
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
1.14 Have confidence intervals
been provided?
SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDY
2.1 How well was the study done to
minimise the risk of bias or
confounding, and to establish a
causal relationship between
exposure and effect?
Code , or –
Quality checklist for an RCT
Study ID
Guideline topic Key question no:
Checklist completed by:
SECTION 1: INTERNAL VALIDITY
In a well conducted diagnostic In this study the criterion is: (Circle
study: one option for each question)
1.1 The nature of the test being Well covered Not addressed
studied is clearly specified. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.2 The test is compared with an Well covered Not addressed
appropriate gold standard. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.3 Where no gold standard exists, Well covered Not addressed
a validated reference standard is Adequately addressed Not reported
used as a comparator. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.4 Patients for testing are selected Well covered Not addressed
either as a consecutive series or Adequately addressed Not reported
randomly, from a clearly defined Poorly addressed Not applicable
study population.
1.5 The test and gold standard are Well covered Not addressed
measured independently (‘blind’) Adequately addressed Not reported
of each other. Poorly addressed Not applicable
Appendix 10
457
Appendix 10
458
1.6 The test and gold standard are Well covered Not addressed
applied as close together in time Adequately addressed Not reported
as possible. Poorly addressed Not applicable
1.7 Results are reported for all Well covered Not addressed
patients who are entered into Adequately addressed Not reported
the study. Poorly addressed Not applicable
ASSESSMENT
1.8 A pre-diagnosis is made and Well covered Not addressed
reported. Adequately addressed Not reported
Poorly addressed Not applicable
SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDY
2.1 How reliable are the
conclusions of this study?
Code , or
2.2 Is the spectrum of patients
assessed in this study
comparable with the patient
group targeted by this
guideline in terms of the
proportion with the disease, or
the proportion with severe
versus mild disease?
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана