Stage 5; Estimating the risk: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:11, 18 December 2022

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {| 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
 |}