You are on page 1of 3

CRITICAL APPRAISAL: Prof.

Wid

Judul
Pengarang
Abstrak

1. Research Question

2. Hipotesis

3. METHODE :
Study type
Is the study type appropriate to the research question ?
Population
 Populasi target
 Populasi terjangkau
Sampling frame
- Kriteria inklusi
- Kriteria eksklusi
Perhitungan besar sampel

4. Measurement
- Independent variable
- Dependent variable
- Confounding variable
Outcome factors and measurement
Are these sources of bias relevant to the study? (Selection bias, recall bias,
ascertainment bias, confounding bias, non-random assignment, incomplete follow-
up)
Have steps been taken to avoid these biases?

5. Statistical Methode

6. Conclusions
- Did they generate new hypothesis?
- Do you agree with the conclusions?
- Do the results apply to the population in which you would be interested?
- Do you accept the results of this study?
CRITICAL APPRAISAL : PROGNOSIS

Judul :

What is the research question?

1. Apakah inception cohort dilakukan dengan baik?

2. Apakah pasien bisa dideteksi dan dimulai pengamatan pada saat yang sama/ seragam
dalam perjalanan penyakitnya?

3. Apakah kriteria diagnosis, derajat penyakit, morbiditas, keadaan demografi yang digunakan
untuk inklusi dijabarkan dengan jelas?

4. Apakah pola rujukan dijabarkan dengan baik?


Apakah telah dihindari : referal filter bias, diagnostic access bias?

5. Apakah semua kasus diikuti dan diamati dengan lengkap?


a. Apakah semua pasien yang diikutkan dalam penelitian cocok dengan pada laporan
hasil?
b. Apakah keadaan klinis semua pasien diketahui?

6. Apakah kriteria keluaran telah ditetapkan dan digunakan dengan baik?


Apakah kriteria dapat digunakan /diterapkan pada pelayanan kesehatan kita dengan
akurat?

7. Apakah keluaran diukur secara membuta (blind)?


Apakah keluaran telah dianalisis dengan baik?
Apakah faktor prognosis lain telah diukur dan dianalisis dengan baik?
UJI DIAGNOSTIK

1. Was there an independent, blind comparison with gold standar?

2. Did the sample include an appropiate spectrum of mild, severe, treated and untreated
disease and individual with different but commonly confused disorder?

3. Was the setting adequatly described?

4. Was the reproducibility of the rest result and its interpretation determined?

5. Was the term normal defined sensibly?

6. If the test advocated as a part of asequence of tests, was its contribution to the overall
validity of the sequence determined?

7. Were the procedures for carrying cut the test described in sufficient detail to permit exact
replication?

8. Was the utility of the test determined?

You might also like