CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE TOPICS
SCREEN FOR INITIAL VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE The article is from a peer-reviewed journal Object of the study is limited to animal, which is need more research to make it applicable in human.
The study was not sponsored by any organization that might influence the study design or results
SCREEN FOR INITIAL VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE The results, if valid, need more research for our practice, due to this journal belongs to animal research This information will have a direct impact on the health of our patients & something they will care about, until it can be proven safely in human being. This information, if valid and proven safely in human, will require us to change our current practice
DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE ARTICLE To compare the outcome of the use silver sulfadiazine (SSD) and olive oil in partial thickness burn
Clinical category
Description
Preferred Study Design
Therapy
Tests the effectiveness of a treatment, such as a drug, surgical procedure, or other intervention
Randomized, doubleblinded, placebocontrolled trial
Diagnosis
Measures the validity (is it dependable?) and reliability (will the same results be obtained every time?) of a diagnostic test, or evaluates the effectiveness of a test in detecting disease at a pre symptomatic stage when applied to a large population
Cross-sectional survey (comparing the new test with a reference standard)
Causation
Assesses whether a substance is related to the development of an illness or condition
Prognosis
Determines the outcome of a disease
Cohort or case-control
Longitudinal cohort study
LEVEL 1 OF EVIDENCE Therapy/Prevention, Aetiology/Harm
Prognosis
Diagnosis
1a SR (with homogeneity*) of RCTs
SR (with homogeneity*) of inception cohort studies; CDR† validated in different populations
SR (with homogeneity*) of Level 1 diagnostic studies; CDR† with 1b studies from different clinical centres
Level
1b
Individual RCT (with narrow Confidence Interval‡)
1c
All or none§
Individual inception Validating** cohort study cohort study with > with good††† reference 80% follow-up; standards; or CDR† CDR† validated in a tested within one clinical single population centre
All or none case-series
Absolute SpPins and SnNouts††
LEVEL 2 EVIDENCE Level
Therapy/Prevention, Aetiology/Harm
Prognosis
Diagnosis
2a
SR (with homogeneity* ) of cohort studies
SR (with homogeneity*) of either retrospective cohort studies or untreated control groups in RCTs
SR (with homogeneity*) of Level >2 diagnostic studies
2b
Individual cohort study (including low quality RCT; e.g., <80% follow-up)
Retrospective cohort study or follow-up of untreated control patients in an RCT; Derivation of CDR† or validated on split-sample§§§ only
Exploratory** cohort study with good†††reference standards; CDR† after derivation, or validated only on split-sample§§§ or databases
2c
"Outcomes" Research; Ecological studies
"Outcomes" Research
Level 3,4,5 of Evidence Level
Therapy/Prevention, Aetiology/Harm
Prognosis
Diagnosis
3a
SR (with homogeneity*) of casecontrol studies
SR (with homogeneity*) of 3b and better studies
3b
Individual Case-Control Study
Non-consecutive study; or without consistently applied reference standards
4
Case-series (and poor quality Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control prognostic cohort studies***) studies§§ )
Case-control study, poor or nonindependent reference standard
5
Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"
Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"
Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"
GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION A
consistent level 1 studies
B
consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies
C
level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies
D
level 5 evidence or troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level
THANK YOU