SNPG905 Minor Project

Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a systematic review study: 
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help locally?  (Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly. 
If the answer to both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There issome degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or “can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists (randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Users’ guides to the medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic format continues to be useful and appropriate. 
Did the review address a clearly focused question?
Did the authors look for the right type of papers?
Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included?
Did the review’s authors do enough to assess quality of the included studies?
5. If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?
What are the overall results of the review
. How precise are the results?
. Can the results be applied to the local population?
. Were all important outcomes considered?
. Are the benefits worth the harms and costs