Understanding how research studies get appraised makes you a better researcher in the sense that you are likely to address all those critical issues when writing up a proposal as well as in the stage of manuscript preparation. Few resources for these checklists are presented below before we dive into some study specific guidances
Cross-Sectional Studies
STROBE Guidelines checklist for Surveys is widely accepted: Visit
The points addressed in the checklist include
| Heading | Sr. | Hint |
|---|---|---|
| TITLE AND ABSTRACT | 1 | (a) Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract |
| (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found | ||
| INTRODUCTION | ||
| Background / Rationale | 2 | Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported |
| Objectives | 3 | State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses |
| METHODS | ||
| Study design | 4 | Present key elements of study design early in the paper |
| Setting | 5 | Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection |
| Participants | 6 | (a) Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants |
| Variables | 7 | Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable |
| Data sources/ measurement | 8* | For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group |
| Bias | 9 | Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias |
| Study size | 10 | Explain how the study size was arrived at |
| Quantitative variables | 11 | Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why |
| Statistical methods | 12 | (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding |
| (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions | ||
| (c) Explain how missing data were addressed | ||
| (d) If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy | ||
| (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses | ||
| RESULTS | ||
| Participants | 13* | (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study—eg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed |
| (b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage | ||
| (c) Consider use of a flow diagram | ||
| Descriptive data | 14* | (a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders |
| (b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest | ||
| Outcome data | 15* | Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures |
| Main results | 16 | (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included |
| (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized | ||
| (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period | ||
| Other analyses | 17 | Report other analyses done—eg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses |
| DISCUSSION | ||
| Key results | 18 | Summarise key results with reference to study objectives |
| Limitations | 19 | Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias |
| Interpretation | 20 | Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence |
| Generalisability | 21 | Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results |
| OTHER INFORMATION | ||
| Funding | 22 | Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based |
Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
This checklist is based on the 2005 article by Akobeng. The CASP checklist is quite similar.
| Sr. | Question | Hint |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clearly focused question? | Population, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes [PICO] |
| 2 | Right type of studies included ? | Cross-sectional / Case-Control / Cohort / RCTs / Economic etc |
| 3 | Attempted to identify all relevant studies? Publication bias | Databases, LanguagesSearch Strategy, Unpublished literature |
| 4 | Quality of all the studies included was assessed ? | Independent review by 2 reviewers |
| 5 | If done: was it reasonable to do meta -analysis / research synthesis ? | Heterogeneity analysis and Explanations |
| 6 | 6a. Presentation of results presented | Measure of effect used |
| 6b. What are the main results? | Key outcome | |
| 7 | Precision of the results | 95% / 90% CIs |
| 8 | Results applicable to your local population? | similarity of study population to your population, benefit v harm, patients preferences, availability, and costs |
| 9 | Were all important outcomes considered? | Possible alternative outcomes that may be relevant |
| 10 | Likely influence on practice or policy based on results of the review? |
