Stage 5; Estimating the risk: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Checklist 3: Evaluating the quality of evidence (for information tables) | ! 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 | | 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 | ||
Revision as of 20:56, 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
| |
Unsatisfactory
|