Table 2 The four main components For evaluating reports
1. The mandate's description of the task | |
|---|---|
Was the committee asked to evaluate: (Yes/No) | |
A. The extent and the seriousness of the problem? | B. The effectiveness of services in meeting needs created by the problem? |
C. Alternative services? | D. Economic consequences? |
E. Values, such as the preferences of patients or ethical considerations? | Â |
2. The strategy used by the committee to gather research information (Yes/No) | |
A. Did the report state that it was based upon research? | B. Did the report state how research was identified? |
3. The use of evidence in recommendations and in the summary (Score 1-5) | |
A. Recommendations: Does the committee clearly state how it weighed up health needs, the effectiveness of treatment, economic concerns, and other values? | B. Is the summary clearly structured and easily understood by non-professionals? |
4. Evaluation of the quality of scientific evidence (Score 1-5) | |
A. Relevance: Does the report make it clear for whom the results are relevant? | B. Documentation: Does the presented evidence rely on research, and are references given? |
C. Validity: Is the assessment of the validity of the evidence clear and well-founded? | D. Size of effects: Is the size of effects clearly described? |
E. Precision: Are confidence intervals identified and evaluated when relevant? | F. Consistency: Are the findings consistent? |
G. Consequences: Are the main consequences identified and assessed? | H. Overall quality: What is the overall scientific quality? |