|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {| class="wikitable" | | {| class="wikitable" |
| |- | | |- |
| ! Checklist 3: Evaluating the quality of evidence (for information tables) || | | ! Header text !! Header text |
| |- | | |- |
| | 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 | | | Example || Example |
| |- | | |- |
| | 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 | | | Example || Example |
| * Textbooks regarded as definitive sources
| |
| * Expert group risk assessments, or specialised expert knowledge, or consensus opinion of experts
| |
| |- | | |- |
| | Satisfactory | | | Example || Example |
| 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 | | | Example || Example |
| * Further research very likely to have impact on confidence of information and likely to change assessment. || * Individual case reports
| | |- |
| * Grey literature
| | | Example || Example |
| * Individual (non-expert) opinion
| |
| |} | | |} |