Journal
AGE AND AGEING
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 359-365Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afw223
Keywords
quality; assessment; methodology; reporting; critical appraisal; older people
Categories
Funding
- Alzheimer Scotland
- University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology part of the cross council Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Initiative [MR/L501530/1]
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
- Medical Research Council (MRC)
- Stroke Association/Chief Scientist Office Senior Clinical Lectureship
- Medical Research Council [MR/K026992/1] Funding Source: researchfish
- National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2012-11-503] Funding Source: researchfish
- Stroke Association [TSA15LECT05, PPA2015/01_CSO] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice. We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools. We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available