Read on Twitter
1/ Let’s get ready for next week's SFO ENT twitter journal club at BACO.
We will be discussing the PET-NECK study on the Monday during BACO – so how do we think about/approach critically appraising a paper?
We will be discussing the PET-NECK study on the Monday during BACO – so how do we think about/approach critically appraising a paper?
2/ Consider the level of evidence, for example by using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009 @CebmOxford
3/ Consider the study design – what was the study population? Is this representative of our pt pop? What is the intervention? Is this acceptable? What is the intervention compared to? What are the outcomes? These factors – PICO - are important when designing research too #PICO
4/ Think about bias – when systematic error is introduced. This can occur in the design, during data collection or analysis. Has the study been randomised? Has the study been blinded? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria? Do they affect validity? #bias
5/ Review the methods – were the appropriate processes followed? For example use of PRISMA standards for a systematic review. Was the follow up complete in each group? What do you think of the outcome measures used? #PRISMA http://www.prisma-statement.org/
6/ Review the results – are they clear? Do the figures aid the visualisation of the results for the audience?
7/ Stats! Are the right statistical tools used? Was a power calculation done in advance? Was the study appropriately powered, to reduce error? Were there p-values given and were these significant (don’t be blinded by the p-values!) #statstwitter
8/ Think about your conclusions – what conclusions would you have drawn from these results? Is that consistent with the authors’ discussion points? What are the main drawbacks in the study, have the authors’ highlighted and addressed these limitations?
9/ The literature – do the results drawn sit comfortably within what is already known? Do they agree/add strength to this? Do they make sense physiologically? Do they contradict previous research? What new do the results add to this field of research?
10/ What do you think of the research? Is this compelling enough to change your practice? To impact national guidelines? What further research needs to be done, and how would you consider addressing this, if there were no limitations?
11/ Please join in with your own ideas on what you look at during critical appraisal @socialmediaAOT @BACOuk @ENT_UK @2020baco @paulnankivell @h_mehanna @neil_sharma_ @trishagreenhalgh @JayeshdoshiENT @otolaryngolofox @MrK_MidlandsENT
12/ Registrars & cons please add tips for #SFO juniors for critically appraising a paper @adnan030808 @hannahrnieto @jfussey @Steelcity_ENT @Summy_Hunter @BewickMs @ TashKeatesENT @kate1603 @kjolly88 @lizrossauc @MrJBarraclough
13/ Registrars & cons please add tips for #SFO juniors for critically appraising a paper @ENTIntegrate @johnhardman @abiwalker24 @bindusmaximus @Dr_max83 @hlan_1 @Nina3Mistry @MsAAENT @MrMattWeller @Voicedoctor_uk @MrScottMaskell @Ajithpgeorge @juji_rop
14/ This is a great article for reviewing papers or setting up a journal club: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24145599/
End/ The PET-NECK study can be found here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1514493 for the upcoming BACO SFO journal club here on Mon 11/1/21
