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 10: | Line 10: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Satisfactory | | Satisfactory | ||
Further research likely to have impact on confidence of information and may change assessment. || Non-peer-reviewed published studies/reports | 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 | * Observational studies/surveillance reports/outbreak reports | ||
Individual (expert) opinion | * Individual (expert) opinion | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Unsatisfactory | | Unsatisfactory | ||
Further research very likely to have impact on confidence of information and likely to change assessment. || Individual case reports | * Further research very likely to have impact on confidence of information and likely to change assessment. || * Individual case reports | ||
Grey literature | * Grey literature | ||
Individual (non-expert) opinion | * Individual (non-expert) opinion | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 20:55, 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
|