No “gold standard” critical appraisal tool for allied health research: Which is the best critical appraisal tool to evaluate the quality of allied health research?

Evidence-Based Dentistry

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 100-101

  Glenny, Anne Marie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY DENTAL HOSPITAL OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855634049     PISSN: 14620049     EISSN: 14765446     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400351     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Last JE. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, New York: Oxford University Press; 1988.
2. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VSS, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4:22.
3. Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354:1896-1899.
4. Stroup D, Berlin J, Morton S, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012.
5. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, CONSORT Group Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001; 285:1987-1991.
6. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of randomized controlled trials for meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 1999; 282: 1054-1060.
7. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/appraisa.htm (accessed 17 July 2005).