Stage 5; Estimating the risk: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |- ! Checklist 3: Evaluating the quality of evidence (for information tables) |- | Quality of evidence = confidence in information; design, quality and ot...") |
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Quality of evidence = confidence in information; design, quality and other factors assessed and judged on consistency, relevance and validity. Grade: good, satisfactory, unsatisfactor || Examples of types of information/evidence | | Quality of evidence = confidence in information; design, quality and other factors assessed and judged on consistency, relevance and validity. Grade: good, satisfactory, unsatisfactor || Examples of types of information/evidence | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Good Further research unlikely to change confidence in information. || Peer-reviewed published studies where design and analysis reduce bias, e.g. systematic reviews, randomised control trials, outbreak reports using analytical epidemiology | | Good Further research unlikely to change confidence in information. || * Peer-reviewed published studies where design and analysis reduce bias, e.g. systematic reviews, randomised control trials, outbreak reports using analytical epidemiology | ||
Textbooks regarded as definitive sources | * Textbooks regarded as definitive sources | ||
Expert group risk assessments, or specialised expert knowledge, or consensus opinion of experts | * Expert group risk assessments, or specialised expert knowledge, or consensus opinion of experts | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Satisfactory | | Satisfactory | ||
Revision as of 20:54, 18 December 2022
| Checklist 3: Evaluating the quality of evidence (for information tables) | |
|---|---|
| Quality of evidence = confidence in information; design, quality and other factors assessed and judged on consistency, relevance and validity. Grade: good, satisfactory, unsatisfactor | Examples of types of information/evidence |
| Good Further research unlikely to change confidence in information. | * Peer-reviewed published studies where design and analysis reduce bias, e.g. systematic reviews, randomised control trials, outbreak reports using analytical epidemiology
|
| Satisfactory
Further research likely to have impact on confidence of information and may change assessment. || Non-peer-reviewed published studies/reports Observational studies/surveillance reports/outbreak reports Individual (expert) opinion | |
| Unsatisfactory
Further research very likely to have impact on confidence of information and likely to change assessment. || Individual case reports Grey literature Individual (non-expert) opinion |