Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Critical Review of Intervention Studies Worksheet CAIS (Sample Answers)

333 visualizaciones

Publicado el

This sample answer sheet corresponds with the first webinar in the Online Journal Club series, “Can the use of text message reminders improve vaccination rates?”

To access the presentation slides in English click here: http://www.slideshare.net/NCCMT/online-journal-club

The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and affiliated with McMaster University. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

NCCMT is one of six National Collaborating Centres (NCCs) for Public Health. The Centres promote and improve the use of scientific research and other knowledge to strengthen public health practices and policies in Canada.

Publicado en: Atención sanitaria
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Critical Review of Intervention Studies Worksheet CAIS (Sample Answers)

  1. 1. Critical Review of Intervention Studies Worksheet CAIS NCCMT On-Line Journal Club Oct 13, 2016 / Nov 17, 2016 Article: Stockwell, M. S., Westhoff, C., Kharbanda, E. O., Vargas, C. Y., Camargo, S., Vawdrey, D. K., & Castaño, P. M. (2014). Influenza Vaccine Text Message Reminders for Urban, Low-Income Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl 1), e7–e12. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301620 SAMPLE Comments I. Are the Results Valid? 1. Did the trial address a clearly focused issue? Yes P – low income, urban obstetric patients I – 5 weekly text messages re vaccines + 2 appointment reminder text messages, in addition to phone calls as in control C – usual phone reminders re appointments O – influenza vaccination 2. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized? Yes- 1:1 allocation , randomization through SPSS, concealed to researcher 3. Were patients, health workers and study personnel ‘blinded’? No - researchers blinded. Not possible to blind patients or health care personnel. 4. Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? See Table 1 Yes – except for gestational age, which was accounted for in the adjusted analysis. 5. Aside from the experimental intervention were the groups treated equally? Can’t tell. No note of other treatment, but cannot always assume no other difference in treatment. 6. Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for? Yes – Figure 1. Accounts for all dropouts. However, no specific mention of Intention to Treat analysis II. What are the results? 7. How large was the treatment effect? See Table 2 – main results – absolute difference and relative risk, and adjusted Odds ratios. No statistically significant differences in Relative Risk (CIs all cross 1); no statistically significant difference in Absolute Risk (CIs all cross 0), Some small differences in adjusted Odds Ratios. Some interesting findings in sub analyses (table 3) – that women at 28-33 weeks GA at beginning of trial more likely to be vaccinated.
  2. 2. Critical Review of Intervention Studies Worksheet CAIS NCCMT On-Line Journal Club Oct 13, 2016 / Nov 17, 2016 Article: Stockwell, M. S., Westhoff, C., Kharbanda, E. O., Vargas, C. Y., Camargo, S., Vawdrey, D. K., & Castaño, P. M. (2014). Influenza Vaccine Text Message Reminders for Urban, Low-Income Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl 1), e7–e12. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301620 Based on Critical Skills Appraisal Programme. (2013). 11 questions to help you make sense of a trial. Retrieved from http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_40b9ff0bf53840478331915a8ed8b2fb.pdf 8. How precise was the treatment effect? For statistically significant Odds Ratios – eg AORb By Dec 31, AOR (95% CI) is 1.30 (1.003, 1.69). Not very precise (wide confidence interval). Also, at lower end of CI (1.003) effect is very small III. Will the results help locally? 9. Can the results be applied in your context? Maybe – if technology already exists or does not cost too much to implement. 10. Were all clinically important outcomes considered? Were participants previously vaccinated? 11. Are the benefits worth the harms and costs? Would look to see if there is a review, other trials, or wait until more evidence.

×