Clinical Question:

Reference: (Insert Article Title Here)

Presenter: (Your name)
“PICO” Questions:
1. Population: _ (Who was included in this study?)

a. Exclusion: _ (Who was excluded from this study?)

1. Intervention: _ (What was the intervention studied?)

2. Comparison: _ (What was the intervention compared to?)
3. Outcome:

a. Primary Outcome: _ (What was the main outcome?)

b. Secondary Outcome: _ (What were the other outcomes studied?)

1. Author’s Conclusions: _ (What were the author’s conclusions?)

Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials
1. The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. _
2. The patients were adequately randomized. _
3. The randomization process was concealed. _
4. The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. _
5. The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). _
6. The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. _
7. All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were unaware of group allocation. _
8. All groups were treated equally except for the intervention. _
9. Follow-up was complete (i.e. at least 80% for both groups). _
10. All patient-important outcomes were considered. _
11. The treatment effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. _
Quality Checklist for Systematic Review: Diagnostic
1. The diagnostic question is clinically relevant with an established criterion standard. _
2. The search for studies was detailed and exhaustive. _
3. The methodological quality of primary studies were assessed for common forms of diagnostic research bias. _
4. The assessments of studies were reproducible. _
5. There was low heterogeneity for estimates of sensitivity or specificity. _
6. The summary diagnostic accuracy is sufficiently precise to improve upon existing clinical decision making models. _
Quality Checklist for Systematic Review: Therapeutic
1. The clinical question is sensible and answerable. _
2. The search for studies was detailed and exhaustive. _
3. The primary studies were of high methodological quality. _
4. The methodological quality of primary studies were assessed for bias. _
5. The assessment of studies were reproducible. _
6. The outcomes were clinically relevant. _
7. There was low heterogeneity for estimates of sensitivity or specificity. _
8. There was low statistical heterogeneity for the primary outcomes. _
9. The treatment effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. _
Quality Checklist for Observational Study
1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue? _
2. Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? _
3. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? _
4. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? _
5. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? _
6. Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? _
7. Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? _
8. How precise are the results? _
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? _
Quality Checklist for Clinical Decision Tools
1. The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. _
2. The patients were representative of those with the problem. _
3. All-important predictor variables and outcomes were explicitly specified. _
4. This is a prospective, multicenter study including a broad spectrum of patients and clinicians (level II). _
5. Clinicians interpret individual predictor variables and score the clinical decision rule reliably and accurately. _
6. This is an impact analysis of a previously validated CDR (level I). _
7. For Level I studies, impact on clinician behavior and patient-centric outcomes is reported _
8. The follow-up was sufficiently long and complete. _
9. The effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. _
Quality Checklist for A Diagnostic Study
1. The clinical problem is well defined. _
2. The study population represents the target population that would normally be tested for the condition (ie no spectrum bias). _
3. The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. _
4. The study patients were recruited consecutively (ie no selection bias). _
5. The diagnostic evaluation was sufficiently comprehensive and applied equally to all patients (ie no evidence of verification bias). _
6. All diagnostic criteria were explicit, valid and reproducible (ie no incorporation bias). _
7. The reference standard was appropriate (i.e. no imperfect gold-standard bias). _
8. All undiagnosed patients underwent sufficiently long and comprehensive follow-up (ie no double gold-standard bias). _
9. The likelihood ratio(s) of the test(s) in question is presented or can be calculated from the information provided. _
10. The precision of the measure of diagnostic performance is satisfactory. _
Quality Checklist for Qualitative Research
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? _
2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? _
3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? _
4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? _
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? _
6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? _
7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? _
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? _
9. Is there a clear statement of findings? _
10. How valuable is the research? _
Quality Checklist for Focus Groups
1. Does the article describe a topic relevant to primary healthcare _
2. Is the research question clearly formulated _
3. Is the qualitative research design appropriate for the research topic or question _
4. Is the focus group technique the most appropriate qualitative research method _
5. Is the sampling technique appropriate _
6. Was the process of information gathering described adequately _
7. Did the researcher make explicit in the account the theoretical framework and methods used
at every stage of the research _
8. Was information analysis clearly described _
9. Do the results address the research question _
10. Were the conclusions trustworthy _
11. Does the researcher formulate what s/he thinks the meaning is of the findings _
12. Have the study results been compared with other knowledge _
13. Has the study contributed usefully to knowledge _
Key Results: Tables and Figures
External Validity/ Applicability

How does this paper affect your care? What will you tell your patient?