批判性评价
医学
质量(理念)
观察研究
过程(计算)
系统回顾
医学教育
管理科学
工程伦理学
梅德林
替代医学
计算机科学
病理
工程类
认识论
操作系统
哲学
法学
政治学
作者
Jennifer Harrison,James Reid,Terry Quinn,Susan D. Shenkin
出处
期刊:Age and Ageing
[Oxford University Press]
日期:2016-11-06
卷期号:46 (3): 359-365
被引量:86
标识
DOI:10.1093/ageing/afw223
摘要
Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice.We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools.We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI