№ lp_1_2_56753
File format: docx
Character count: 18327
File size: 688 KB
This document provides guidelines for critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the methodological quality and potential biases in the design, conduct, and analysis of the trials for systematic reviews.
Year:
2020
Region / City:
South Australia
Topic:
Systematic Reviews, Critical Appraisal, Healthcare Research
Document Type:
Research Guideline
Institution:
University of Adelaide, JBI
Author:
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L
Target Audience:
Researchers, Healthcare Professionals
Period of Application:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
Evidence-based Health Care, Systematic Reviews, Critical Appraisal Tools
Document Type:
Checklist
Organization:
JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute)
Author:
Barker TH, Habibi N, Aromataris E, Stone JC, Leonardi-Bee J, Sears K, et al.
Target Audience:
Researchers, healthcare professionals, academics
Period of Validity:
2023
Approval Date:
2023
Date of Last Review:
2023
Date of Revision:
2023
Description:
A checklist for critically appraising quasi-experimental studies as part of systematic reviews.
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Adelaide, South Australia
Topic:
Systematic Review, Critical Appraisal, Evidence-Based Healthcare
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute)
Authors:
McArthur A, Klugarova J, Yan H, Florescu S
Target Audience:
Healthcare Professionals, Researchers, Policy Developers
Period of Validity:
N/A
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Note:
Year
Organization:
JBI
Institution:
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide
Country:
Australia
Field:
evidence-based healthcare
Document type:
critical appraisal checklist and methodological guidance
Scope:
case series studies
Context of use:
JBI Systematic Reviews
Authors:
Munn Z; Barker T; Moola S; Tufanaru C; Stern C; McArthur A; Stephenson M; Aromataris E
Source journal:
JBI Evidence Synthesis
DOI:
10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099
Intended audience:
healthcare researchers and systematic reviewers
Source type:
methodological guidance document
Methodological focus:
assessment of bias, reporting quality, and statistical analysis
Peer review status:
approved by the JBI Scientific Committee
Year:
2020
Region / City:
South Australia
Topic:
Systematic reviews, Critical appraisal, Cohort studies
Document Type:
Research methodology tool
Organization / Institution:
JBI (University of Adelaide)
Author:
Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Qureshi R, Mattis P, Lisy K, Mu P-F
Target Audience:
Researchers, healthcare practitioners, systematic review reviewers
Period of Application:
2020 onwards
Approval Date:
2020
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Organization:
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)
Document type:
Critical appraisal tool / checklist
Topic:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Target audience:
Researchers conducting systematic reviews
Year:
2020
Source:
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
Format:
Checklist for individual participants in parallel group RCTs
Purpose:
Assess methodological quality and risk of bias in RCTs
Reference:
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness
Year:
2015
Region / city:
South Australia, Adelaide
Subject:
Evidence-based healthcare, Systematic reviews, Critical appraisal
Document type:
Checklist
Organization / institution:
JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute)
Author:
McArthur A, Klugarova J, Yan H, Florescu S
Target audience:
Researchers, healthcare professionals, systematic reviewers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of revisions:
N/A
Organization:
JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute)
Institutional affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide
Country:
Australia
Document type:
Critical appraisal checklist
Source series:
JBI Critical Appraisal Tools
Intended use:
Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis
Study design addressed:
Case control studies
Review methodology:
Evidence-based healthcare
Authors cited:
Moola S; Munn Z; Tufanaru C; Aromataris E; Sears K; Sfetcu R; Currie M; Qureshi R; Mattis P; Lisy K; Mu P-F
Referenced publication:
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
Publication year:
2020
Assessment criteria:
Bias, confounding, exposure measurement, statistical analysis
Response options:
Yes; No; Unclear; Not applicable
Source type:
Methodological guidance document
Year:
2015
Region / city:
Adelaide
Topic:
Evidence-based healthcare, systematic reviews, critical appraisal tools
Document type:
Research methodology
Institution:
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Author:
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Kahlil H, Tungpunkom P
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, researchers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of last change:
N/A
Year:
2017
Region / city:
Adelaide, Australia
Topic:
Evidence-based healthcare, critical appraisal, systematic reviews
Document type:
Checklist
Organization:
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Author:
Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Qureshi R, Mattis P, Lisy K, Mu P-F
Target audience:
Researchers, healthcare professionals
Effective period:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Modification date:
N/A
Year:
2017
Region / City:
Adelaide, Australia
Topic:
Evidence-based healthcare, systematic reviews
Document type:
Checklist
Organization:
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Author:
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, researchers
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Date of approval:
2017
Date of last revision:
N/A
Organization:
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)
Document type:
Critical appraisal tool / checklist
Topic:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Target audience:
Researchers conducting systematic reviews
Year:
2020
Source:
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
Format:
Checklist for individual participants in parallel group RCTs
Purpose:
Assess methodological quality and risk of bias in RCTs
Reference:
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness
Year:
2019
Note:
Region / city
Topic:
Risk of bias assessment, randomized trials
Document type:
Template
Organization / institution:
Cochrane Collaboration
Author:
Julian PT Higgins, Jelena Savović, Matthew J Page, Jonathan AC Sterne
Target audience:
Researchers, clinicians, trialists
Note:
Year
Target Audience:
Statisticians and Principal Investigators responsible for preparation of DSMB reports
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Seattle
Subject:
Oncology, Cardiology
Document Type:
Clinical Protocol
Author:
Kasey Leger, MD
Target Audience:
Medical Professionals, Researchers
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2021
Date of Last Update:
2021
Document type:
Supplementary materials
Study type:
Randomized controlled trial
Trial name:
iMODIPONV
Medical field:
Anesthesiology
Clinical focus:
Postoperative nausea and vomiting after hysterectomy
Primary variable:
Muscular tissue oxygen saturation
Population:
Posthysterectomy patients
Study design:
Multicenter
Participating institutions:
University and provincial hospitals
Countries involved:
China, United States
Committees:
Steering Committee, Quality Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board
Data included:
Site investigators, coordinators, hospital participation, treatment assignment, randomization errors
Analyses:
Sensitivity analyses, multivariable logistic regression
Supplementary content:
Figures and tables
Source type:
Supplement to a peer-reviewed clinical trial publication
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Liege, Belgium
Field:
Anesthesia, Pharmacology
Document Type:
Clinical Trial Report
Institution:
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Liege University Hospital, Liege, Belgium
Authors:
G Van Munster, F Beck, PY Hardy, M Carella, V Bonhomme
Target Audience:
Medical professionals, researchers in anesthesia
Period of Study:
October 21, 2021 – April 8, 2022
Approval Date:
2021
Modification Date:
N/A
Funding:
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Liege University Hospital, Liege, Belgium
Ethics Approval:
Comité d’Ethique Hospitalo-Facultaire Universitaire de Liège (study number 2021/190)
Clinical Trial Registration:
EudraCT: 2021-002824-19
Methodology:
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Conclusion:
MS does not effectively reduce propofol requirements for hypnosis in general anesthesia during thyroidectomy