|
Publication Type
|
Key Appraisal Questions
|
Primary Evaluation Criteria
|
Potential Limitations
|
|
Case Report
|
- Is the case description comprehensive?
- Are unique or important aspects highlighted?
- What is the potential broader significance?
- Are ethical considerations addressed?
- How unusual or informative is the case?
|
- Detailed description
- Clinical relevance
- Potential learning value
- Ethical considerations
|
- Cannot generalize
- Limited scientific value
- Potential reporting bias
|
|
Case Study
|
- Was the study methodology rigorous?
- How were data collected and analyzed?
- What contextual factors were considered?
- Are findings potentially transferable?
- What are the study's limitations?
|
- Depth of analysis
- Contextual understanding
- Methodological rigor
- Potential insights
|
- Limited generalizability
- Potential researcher bias
- Narrow scope
|
|
Clinical Practice Guideline
|
- Was the guideline developed systematically?
- Are recommendations based on best available evidence?
- How recently was the guideline updated?
- Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
- Does it address multiple clinical scenarios?
|
- Evidence quality
- Comprehensive approach
- Clarity of recommendations
- Professional consensus
|
- May become outdated
- Potential funding bias
- Limited individual patient variation
|
|
Clinical Protocol
|
- Are steps clearly defined and sequenced?
- Is the protocol based on current evidence?
- Does it provide decision-making guidance?
- Are potential variations addressed?
- How flexible is the implementation?
|
- Procedural clarity
- Evidence-based approach
- Practical applicability
- Safety considerations
|
- May not fit all scenarios
- Potential oversimplification
- Limited individual adaptation
|
|
Consensus/Position Statement
|
- Who developed the statement?
- What evidence supports the consensus?
- How representative are the contributors?
- Are minority opinions acknowledged?
- What is the level of agreement?
|
- Expert credibility
- Transparency
- Breadth of perspective
- Scientific backing
|
- Potential expert bias
- Limited empirical evidence
- May reflect opinion over research
|
|
Financial/Economic Impact Report
|
- What methodology was used for analysis?
- Are all relevant costs considered?
- What are the long-term financial implications?
- Are assumptions clearly stated?
- How sensitive are the findings to variations?
|
- Comprehensive cost analysis
- Methodological rigor
- Transparency of assumptions
- Long-term perspective
|
- Complex modeling
- Potential predictive limitations
- Sensitivity to input variables
|
|
Literature Review
|
- Was the search strategy comprehensive?
- How were studies selected and evaluated?
- Are contradictory findings discussed?
- Is the review critically analytical?
- Are gaps in current research identified?
|
- Search comprehensiveness
- Critical analysis
- Synthesis quality
- Research gap identification
|
- Potential selection bias
- May not be systematic
- Dependent on available literature
|
|
Quality Improvement Report
|
- What was the specific improvement goal?
- How was progress measured?
- What interventions were implemented?
- Are results statistically significant?
- Are sustainability and scalability addressed?
|
- Measurable outcomes
- Intervention clarity
- Statistical validity
- Potential for broader application
|
- May be context-specific
- Potential implementation challenges
- Limited long-term data
|
Chat