How to critically appraise an article (original) (raw)
Druss BG and Marcus SC (2005) Growth and decentralisation of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc93: 499–501 PubMedPubMed Central Google Scholar
Glasziou PP (2008) Information overload: what's behind it, what's beyond it? Med J Aust189: 84–85 PubMed Google Scholar
Last JE (Ed.; 2001) A Dictionary of Epidemiology (4th Edn). New York: Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Sackett DL et al. (2000). Evidence-based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone Google Scholar
Guyatt G and Rennie D (Eds; 2002). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: a Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Google Scholar
Greenhalgh T (2000) How to Read a Paper: the Basics of Evidence-based Medicine. London: Blackwell Medicine Books Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (2000) How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature. Canberra: NHMRC
Elwood JM (1998) Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (2nd Edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2002) Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence? Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 47, Publication No 02-E019 Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Crombie IK (1996) The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal: a Handbook for Health Care Professionals. London: Blackwell Medicine Publishing Group Google Scholar
Heller RF et al. (2008) Critical appraisal for public health: a new checklist. Public Health122: 92–98 Article Google Scholar
MacAuley D et al. (1998) Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice. BMJ316: 1134–37 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Parkes J et al. Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. Art. No.: cd001270. 10.1002/14651858.cd001270 Google Scholar
Mays N and Pope C (2000) Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ320: 50–52 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Hawking SW (2003) On the Shoulders of Giants: the Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Philadelphia, PN: Penguin Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) A Guide to the Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council
US Preventive Services Taskforce (1996) Guide to clinical preventive services (2nd Edn). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins
Solomon MJ and McLeod RS (1995) Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery118: 456–467 Article Google Scholar
Rothman KJ (2002) Epidemiology: an Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Young JM and Solomon MJ (2003) Improving the evidence-base in surgery: sources of bias in surgical studies. ANZ J Surg73: 504–506 Article Google Scholar
Margitic SE et al. (1995) Lessons learned from a prospective meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc43: 435–439 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Shea B et al. (2001) Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUORUM statement compared to other tools. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context 2nd Edition, 122–139 (Eds Egger M. et al.) London: BMJ Books Chapter Google Scholar
Easterbrook PH et al. (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet337: 867–872 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Begg CB and Berlin JA (1989) Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst81: 107–115 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Moher D et al. (2000) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Br J Surg87: 1448–1454 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Shea BJ et al. (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology7: 10 [10.1186/1471-2288-7-10] Google Scholar
Stroup DF et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA283: 2008–2012 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Young JM and Solomon MJ (2003) Improving the evidence-base in surgery: evaluating surgical effectiveness. ANZ J Surg73: 507–510 Article Google Scholar
Schulz KF (1995) Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA274: 1456–1458 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Schulz KF et al. (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA273: 408–412 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Moher D et al. (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology1: 2 [http://www.biomedcentral.com/ 1471-2288/1/2] (accessed 25 November 2008) ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Rochon PA et al. (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design. BMJ330: 895–897 Article Google Scholar
Mamdani M et al. (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ330: 960–962 Article Google Scholar
Normand S et al. (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding. BMJ330: 1021–1023 Article Google Scholar
von Elm E et al. (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ335: 806–808 Article Google Scholar
Sutton-Tyrrell K (1991) Assessing bias in case-control studies: proper selection of cases and controls. Stroke22: 938–942 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Knottnerus J (2003) Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol56: 1118–1128 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Furukawa TA and Guyatt GH (2006) Sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the diagnostic process. CMAJ174: 481–482 Article Google Scholar
Bossyut PM et al. (2003)The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med138: W1–W12 Article Google Scholar
STARD statement (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). [http://www.stard-statement.org/] (accessed 10 September 2008)
Palmer S et al. (1999) Economics notes: types of economic evaluation. BMJ318: 1349 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Russ S et al. (1999) Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol52: 1143–1156 Article Google Scholar
Tinmouth JM et al. (2004) Are claims of equivalency in digestive diseases trials supported by the evidence? Gastroentrology126: 1700–1710 Article Google Scholar
Kaul S and Diamond GA (2006) Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med145: 62–69 Article Google Scholar
Piaggio G et al. (2006) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA295: 1152–1160 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Heritier SR et al. (2007) Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention to treat principle. In Interpreting and Reporting Clinical Trials: a Guide to the CONSORT Statement and the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trials, 92–98 (Eds Keech A. et al.) Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Medical Publishing Company Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 89–90 Canberra: NHMRC
Lo B et al. (2000) Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med343: 1616–1620 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Kim SYH et al. (2004) Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interests. J Med Ethics30: 73–79 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Komesaroff PA and Kerridge IH (2002) Ethical issues concerning the relationships between medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry. Med J Aust176: 118–121 PubMed Google Scholar
Little M (1999) Research, ethics and conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics25: 259–262 ArticleCAS Google Scholar
Lemmens T and Singer PA (1998) Bioethics for clinicians: 17. Conflict of interest in research, education and patient care. CMAJ159: 960–965 CASPubMedPubMed Central Google Scholar