UNM Emergency Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Follow Up
Evidence Review Form
Name: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________
Focus
Citation:________________________________________________________________________________
What is the Primary Research
Question or Hypothesis
addressed in this article?
Internal Validity
What is the Study Design?
Comment on specific design
Strengths and/or Weaknesses
Design Rating: (circle)
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
External Validity
Describe the study subjects
Comment on the
Generalizability of this study.
External Validity Rating: (circle)
Construct Validity
What are the outcome
measures?
Does the study aptly measure
what it proposes to measure?
If not, why not?
Methods Rating: (circle)
Analysis
What are the Results and
Conclusions?
What Statistical Evidence is
provided to support these
conclusions?
Application
Analysis Rating: (circle)
How is this study applicable to
the practice of medicine?
What did you learn from this
article?
Will you change your practice?
Applicability Rating: (circle)
UNM Emergency Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Follow Up
Evidence Review Form–Template Guide
Name: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________
Focus
Citation:________________________________________________________________________________
What is the Primary Research
Question or Hypothesis
addressed in this article?
Internal Validity
Comment on specific design
Strengths and/or Weaknesses
Design Rating: (circle)
External Validity
Describe the study subjects
Construct Validity
=
=
=
=
Patient, Population or Problem
Intervention
Comparison or Control
Outcome
General study traits:
Specific study types:
Prospective or Retrospective?
Case Study/Case Series
Ecologic
Observational or Intervention?
Case-Control
Systematic Review
Longitudinal or Cross-Sectional?
Cohort
Community Trial
Blinding or Masking?
Clinical Trial
Randomized?
Possible discussion points:
Have the authors adequately considered the role of bias in the study, particularly selection biases?
Have potential confounders been considered and ‘adjusted’ for in the analysis.
Where does this study design fall in the EBM hierarchy-of-evidence?
1
Flawed
Subject selection:
Convenience sample
Simple random sample
Stratified random sample
Whole population (census)
2
Limited
Is the sample selection:
Population based?
Community based?
Hospital/Clinic based?
Comment on the
Generalizability of this study.
Possible discussion points:
To what population will results be applicable?
Is the effect to be measured applicable to external circumstances?
External Validity Rating: (circle)
1
2
Flawed
Limited
What is the principal outcome?
This should answer their stated objective/research question.
What are the outcome
measures?
3
Appropriate
3
Appropriate
What are secondary outcomes, if any?
Does the study aptly measure
what it proposes to measure?
If not, why not?
Methods Rating: (circle)
What are the Results and
Conclusions?
Analysis
P
I
C
O
Primary research question/ hypotheses are generally found in the last paragraph of the introduction.
What is the Study Design?
What Statistical Evidence is
provided to support these
conclusions?
Analysis Rating: (circle)
Application
Use PICO, if helpful
Data type(s):
Dichotomous
Categorical
Ordinal
Discrete
Continuous (Interval or Ratio?)
Possible discussion points:
Are outcomes meaningful and relevant?
Are measurement instruments, if used, both reliable and valid?
What potential confounding factors are considered?
1
2
Flawed
Limited
Possible discussion points:
Does the paper answer their research question?
3
Appropriate
Possible discussion points:
Does the data analysis adequately consider the role of chance?
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
1
Flawed
2
Limited
3
Appropriate
How is this study applicable to
the practice of medicine?
What did you learn from this
article?
Will you change your practice?
Applicability Rating: (circle)