| 1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue? |
'focused' in terms of the population studied / risk factors / the outcomes |
|
whether the study tried to detect a beneficial or harmful effect |
| 2. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? |
Was the cohort representative of a defined population? |
|
Was there something special about the cohort? |
| 3. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias? |
Did they use subjective or objective measurements |
|
Have they been validated |
| 4. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias? |
Do the measurements truly reflect what you want them to |
|
Were the measurement methods similar in different groups |
| 5A. Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? |
List the ones you think might be important, and ones the author missed |
| 5B. Have they taken account of the confounding factors in the design/analysis? |
Look for restriction in design and techniques (e.g. modelling, sensitivity analysis) |
| 6a. Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? |
The good or bad effects should have had long enough to reveal themselves |
|
the persons that are lost to follow-up may have different outcomes than those available for assessment |
| 6b. Was the follow up of subjects long enough? |
|
| 7. What are the results of this study? |
What are the bottom-line results? |
|
Have they reported the rate or the proportion between the ratio/rate difference? |
|
How strong is the association between A and B? |
| 8. How precise are the results? |
Look for the range of CI, if given |
| 9. Do you believe the results? |
|
| 10. Can the results be applied to the local population? |
|
| 11. Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? |
|