METHODOLOGY CHECKLIST TEMPLATE FOR CLINICAL STUDIES AND REVIEWS

National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK)

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Psychosis with Coexisting Substance Misuse: Assessment and Management in Adults and Young People. Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society (UK); 2011. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 120.)

Cover of Psychosis with Coexisting Substance Misuse

Psychosis with Coexisting Substance Misuse: Assessment and Management in Adults and Young People.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

APPENDIX 8METHODOLOGY CHECKLIST TEMPLATE FOR CLINICAL STUDIES AND REVIEWS

The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using NICE checklists (NICE, 2009b). The checklists for systematic reviews and for RCTs are reproduced below (for other checklists and further information about how to complete each checklist, see The Guidelines Manual [NICE, 2009b]). The completed checklists can be found in Appendix 16.

Methodology checklist: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Study identification Include author, title, reference, year of publication
Guideline topic:	Review question no:
Checklist completed by:
SCREENING QUESTIONS
In a well-conducted, relevant systematic review:	Circle one option for each question
The review addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question that is relevant to the guideline review question	Yes	No	Unclear
The review collects the type of studies you consider relevant to the guideline review question	Yes	No	Unclear
The literature search is sufficiently rigorous to identify all the relevant studies	Yes	No	Unclear
Study quality is assessed and reported	Yes	No	Unclear
An adequate description of the methodology used is included, and the methods used are appropriate to the question	Yes	No	Unclear

Methodology checklist: RCTs

Study identification Include author, title, reference, year of publication
Guideline topic:		Review question no:
Checklist completed by:		Circle one option for each question
A. Selection bias (systematic differences between the comparison groups)
A1	An appropriate method of randomisation was used to allocate participants to treatment groups (which would have balanced any confounding factors equally across groups)	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
A2	There was adequate concealment of allocation (such that investigators, clinicians and participants cannot influence enrolment or treatment allocation)	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
A3	The groups were comparable at baseline, including all major confounding and prognostic factors	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
Based on your answers to the above, in your opinion was selection bias present? If so, what is the likely direction of its effect?
Low risk of bias	Unclear/unknown risk	High risk of bias
Likely direction of effect:
B. Performance bias (systematic differences between groups in the care provided, apart from the intervention under investigation)
B1	The comparison groups received the same care apart from the intervention(s) studied	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
B2	Participants receiving care were kept ‘blind’ to treatment allocation	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
B3	Individuals administering care were kept ‘blind’ to treatment allocation	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
Based on your answers to the above, in your opinion was performance bias present? If so, what is the likely direction of its effect?
Low risk of bias	Unclear/unknown risk	High risk of bias
Likely direction of effect:
C. Attrition bias (systematic differences between the comparison groups with respect to loss of participants)
C1	All groups were followed up for an equal length of time (or analysis was adjusted to allow for differences in length of follow-up)	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
C2	a. How many participants did not complete treatment in each group?
	b. The groups were comparable for treatment completion (that is, there were no important or systematic differences between groups in terms of those who did not complete treatment)	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
C3	a. For how many participants in each group were no outcome data available?
	b. The groups were comparable with respect to the availability of outcome data (that is, there were no important or systematic differences between groups in terms of those for whom outcome data were not available).	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
Based on your answers to the above, in your opinion was attrition bias present? If so, what is the likely direction of its effect?
Low risk of bias	Unclear/unknown risk	High risk of bias
Likely direction of effect:
D. Detection bias (bias in how outcomes are ascertained, diagnosed or verified)
D1	The study had an appropriate length of follow-up	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
D2	The study used a precise definition of outcome	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
D3	A valid and reliable method was used to determine the outcome	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
D4	Investigators were kept ‘blind’ to participants' exposure to the intervention	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
D5	Investigators were kept ‘blind’ to other important confounding and prognostic factors	Yes	No	Unclear	N/A
Based on your answers to the above, in your opinion was detection bias present? If so, what is the likely direction of its effect?
Low risk of bias	Unclear/unknown risk	High risk of bias
Likely direction of effect:

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Enquiries in this regard should be directed to the British Psychological Society.

Bookshelf ID: NBK109798

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Psychosis with Coexisting Substance Misuse: Assessment and Management in Adults and Young People. Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society (UK); 2011. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 120.) APPENDIX 8, METHODOLOGY CHECKLIST TEMPLATE FOR CLINICAL STUDIES AND REVIEWS.
PDF version of this title (1.4M)