Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Researchers nights Information Day Colette RENIER Research Executive Agency FP7-PEOPLE-2010-NIGHT INFORMATION DAY Brussels, 12 November.
Advertisements

Training Guide. `
Synthesizing the evidence on the relationship between education, health and social capital Dan Sherman, PhD American Institutes for Research 25 February,
Combining findings from different research The EBM workshop A.A.Haghdoost, MD; PhD of Epidemiology Qualitative versus quantitative.
Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for.
NIET Teacher Evaluation Process
Searching for Relevant Studies Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews.
This workbook consists of four worksheets: Summary (tests) small tests BIG TESTS E X A M.
EXPLORE Academic Results 8 th Grade EXPLORE Test Results #1.
Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare.
Chapter Two Traits, Motives, and Characteristics of Leaders
Common Core State Standards Professional Learning Module Series
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence July–August 2014.
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
AHRQ National Advisory Council on Healthcare Research and Quality Subcommittee on Children’s Healthcare Quality Measures for Medicaid and CHIP Programs.
Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP) in English Workshop: Introducing APP February
Assessing Quality of Individual Studies Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic.
Topic Refinement Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide.
Analytic Frameworks Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide
Assessing Chronic Illness Care in Prison (ACIC-P): A Tool for Tracking Chronic Illness Care in Prison Emily Wang, M.D., MAS Yale University School of Medicine.
TOBY LASSERSON SENIOR EDITOR The Cochrane Library and new developments for users Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Module 1 Unit 2 Project: writing an advice letter --By Zhou Zhenghu No
Video 9: 3-Point Holistic Rubric
Compass: Module 2 Compass Requirements: Teachers’ Overall Evaluation Rating Student Growth Student Learning Targets (SLTs) Value-added Score (VAM) where.
Classroom Assessments Checklists, Rating Scales, and Rubrics
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Brief summary of the GRADE framework Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair and Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine.
Research Techniques Made Simple: Evaluating the Strength of Clinical Recommendations in the Medical Literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE Mayra Buainain de.
Grading Strength of Evidence Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide.
Systematic Review Module 7: Rating the Quality of Individual Studies Meera Viswanathan, PhD RTI-UNC EPC.
Traits, Motives, and Characteristics of Leaders
Reporting the Review Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods.
Systematic Review Module 11: Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD Distinguished Fellow RTI International.
The (ab)use of symptom scores in asthma clinical trials: a systematic review Geoff Frampton & Jonathan Shepherd Southampton Health Technology Assessments.
Presentation of Findings Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods.
Quantitative Synthesis I Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods.
Why Occupational Studies? Occupational Studies What is it ? A new and very different type of qualification for Year 11 and 12 Rooted in practical and.
End-of-Year Review Self Assessment Process May 2014.
When To Select Observational Studies Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic.
Analytic Frameworks Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
SAM-101 Standards and Evaluation. SAM-102 On security evaluations Users of secure systems need assurance that products they use are secure Users can:
Quantitative Synthesis II Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews.
USING COMMAND TERMS – PRACTICE 1 ATKINSON, D THE USE OF PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION AND RESPONDENT DIARIES IN A STUDY OF ORDINARY LIVING.
Scoring Rubrics: Validity and Reliability Barbara M. Moskal Colorado School of Mines.
Assessing Applicability Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods.
© 2010 University of Houston and Texas Education Agency Tejas LEE Grouping: Converting Results into Effective Instruction.
Test Reflection Chapter 3 - Decimals. Paragraph 1 What did you do to prepare for the test? Did you study? How much?
+ PARCC Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.
The Relative Value (based on how the report compares to the RS’s rating history for a given grade) is broken down into thirds. NOTE! 90 RV is NOT the magic.
An explanation of how Grading in Practice is calculated. Grading in Practice team UWE May 2016.
Fractions.
Milton Tenenbein, MD University of Manitoba
Data Extraction Interactive Quiz
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Dr. Daniele Wikoff – ToxStrategies Experimental Biology 2017
Training Course on Integrated Management System for Regulatory Body
Mark Baxter Texas Education Agency
Lecture 4: Meta-analysis
Grading Strength of Evidence
(These Dates Do Not Change) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Study Eligibility Criteria Interactive Quiz
Ace it!SM Tutoring Teacher Training
How to Annotate AOWs done correctly!.
SUPPORTING THE Progress Report in MATH
A parents guide for schools
A parents guide for schools
A parents guide for schools
A parents guide for schools
A parents guide for schools
Presentation transcript:

Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide

Is grading the strength of evidence the same as rating the quality of studies? A.Yes, they are the same thing. B.No, but you can grade strength of evidence at the same time that you rate the quality of the individual studies. C.No, you can grade the strength of evidence only after you have rated the quality of individual studies. Strength of Evidence Versus Quality

Strength-of-evidence grading specifies required domains. What are they? A.Risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision B.Risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias C.Risk of bias, precision, strength of association, and directness Required Domains

Which list below reflects the correct grades for strength of evidence? A.High, moderate, low, very low B.Very high, high, moderate, low, very low C.High, moderate, low, insufficient Strength-of –Evidence Grades

What discretionary domains can be used to reach a strength-of-evidence grade? A.Dose-response association, plausible confounders, strength of association, and publication bias B.Plausible confounders, strength of association, applicability, funding sources, and publication bias C.Numbers of studies or articles, publication bias, and applicability Discretionary Domains

In combining scores for domains into an overall grade for strength of evidence, which of the following approaches can be used? A.Only the GRADE algorithm for weighting domains B.Only the reviewer’s own numerical weighting system C.Only the reviewer’s own qualitative (nonnumerical) approach D.Any of the above Combining Scores for Overall Grade

In scoring required and additional domains and in arriving at an overall grade for strength of evidence, which of the following should be done? A.Use only one senior reviewer to perform these tasks and report this score. B.Use two or more reviewers, resolve differences by consensus or adjudication by a third party, and report all scores. C.Use two or more reviewers, resolve differences by consensus or adjudication by a third party, and report a consensus score. Consensus Scoring

 To grade strength of evidence within a comparative effectiveness review, reviewers must:  Understand the major concepts of strength-of-evidence grading  Know the difference between rating the quality of individual studies and grading whole bodies of evidence  Know the four required domains to be assessed and the possible other domains that can be used  Understand the strength-of-evidence grades and the approaches that can be used to combine domain scores Summary

 This quiz was prepared by Kathleen N. Lohr, Ph.D., a Distinguished Fellow at RTI International.  This module is based on an update of chapter 11 in version 1.0 of the Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (updated chapter available at: ts/60/318/2009_0805_ grading.pdf ). Author