A set of training materials for professionals working in intervention epidemiology, public health microbiology and infection control and hospital hygiene.
Need help with your investigation or report writing? Ask the Expert. Free advice from the professional community.
You can't make decissions on this page's approval status because you have not the owner or an admin on this page's Group.
The quality of evidence is the confidence in the veracity of the information or data, and depends on the source, design and quality of each study or piece of information. In contrast with EBM where randomised controlled trials are ranked highest and observational studies ranked lowest, in rapid risk assessment the evidence may be limited and therefore there may be greater reliance on observational studies, including case reports and specialist expert knowledge. For most infectious disease threats only observational data are available.
Certain factors affect the quality of evidence. Factors that may increase the quality include: the method of generating data and study design (i.e. analytical epidemiology versus descriptive), the strength of association, evidence of dose response, and consistency with other studies/expert opinion. Factors that may decrease the quality include: reporting bias, inconsistency, and conflicting evidence/opinion.
Ideally, a rapid risk assessment should not rely on a single study or piece of evidence. There should be a cautious approach to the interpretation of information if only one research group reports on an infection or disease association in multiple publications. Poor evidence or information should not be used for the rapid risk assessment unless this is the only data available; in this case any uncertainties should be documented in the information table.
Triangulation is a technique widely used in qualitative research to address internal validity by using more than one method of data collection to answer a research question. The body of evidence should be considered as a whole, and the triangulation of evidence should confirm (or refute) internal validity of findings. Triangulation of evidence,including specialist expert knowledge, may be important to reach a consensus. Ensure a minimum of two to threedata sources and agreement between these (i.e. two experts or expert and literature). Sources of evidence and agreement between these (or absence of) should be clearly stated in the information table. Based on consistency, relevance and external validity of the available and relevant information the quality of evidence is graded as: good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory (definitions and examples are given in Checklist 3).
Checklist 3: Evaluating the quality of evidence (for information tables)
Quality of evidence = confidence in information; design, quality and other factors assessed and judged on consistency, relevance and validity. Grade: good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory
Examples of types of information/evidence
Further research unlikely to change confidence in information.
Further research likely to have impact on confidence of information and may change assessment.
Further research very likely to have impact on confidence of information and likely to change assessment.
Join the discussion about this article in the forum!
jcabaj posted on 8/5/2011 12:20:08 AM:
The last sentence of the cohort study section ("Therefore, in this example, age is not a confounder of the relationship between magnetic field exposure and breast cancer.") seems to be in error (should read: gender not confounder for vaccination status and disease).
James Stuart replied on 8/5/2011 11:54:04 AM:
I am not sure as to which section this comment applies. Is this a different chapter?
Arnold Bosman replied on 8/10/2011 8:15:32 AM:
Your comment is correct, however it was placed by the wrong chapter. Your remark is about an error in the chapter on Confounding, not on Causal Inference.
Thanks a lot for your remark, I have modified the content accordingly. I want to invite you to make modifications and improvements directly to the text as well, This is why it is a WIKI.
sbpmebxu replied on 7/29/2015 7:29:25 PM: 1
You need to be logged in to post comments.
You can log in here. You can register here if you haven't done so yet.