These studies describe the experience of one or more people with the disease. Limitations: no comparison, variation in sampling, study population has been selected by researcher
1 of 18
Case control
These studies compare patients who have the disease to patients that don't. It looks back to determine the frequency of exposure of risk factors present in each group. B: useful for rare diseases. L: confounding, suitable control group, recall bias
2 of 18
Cohort
These studies observe large groups of individuals, record their exposure to risk factors and gather data going forwards. L: observational, no cause and effect, confounding, inefficient for rare diseases or those with long latency
3 of 18
Randomised control
These studies randomly assign participants into an experimental group or control. It is used when uncertain about treatment or exposure can be modified. B: random, low confounding. L: volunteer bias, generalisability to other populations/environment
4 of 18
Systematic review
A detailed and comprehensive search strategy of published literature for a clinical question/hypothesis
5 of 18
Meta analysis
uses statistical techniques to condense the large amount of data from a systematic review into a single quantitative summary. The data obtained is used to demonstrate the magnitude of effects an intervention has between two variables
6 of 18
Evidence based medicine
The use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients
7 of 18
Patient oriented outcomes
Outcomes that matter directly to the patient, e.g. morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction and/or quality of life
8 of 18
Disease oriented outcomes
Physiological or surrogate outcomes, e.g. change in blood pressure
9 of 18
Patient
P of PICO - the population group your patient sits within
10 of 18
Intervention
I of PICO - the therapy, process or diagnostic test you are looking at
11 of 18
Comparison
C of PICO - the intervention against which you are measuring your intervention
12 of 18
Outcome
O of PICO - the endpoint of interest to the patient (Hard or surrogate)
13 of 18
Efficacy
Whether a treatment gives the desired results in ideal experimental settings
14 of 18
Effectiveness
The degree of beneficial effect in "real world" clinical settings
15 of 18
Critical appraisals
The systematic examinations of the available evidence to judge its validity, results and relevance
16 of 18
External validity
The extent to which the findings are generalisable beyond the limits of the study to the study's target population
17 of 18
Internal validity
How the study was run (design, measurement of outcomes, etc.) which dictates the extent to which the observed effects were produced by the intervention being assessed
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
These studies compare patients who have the disease to patients that don't. It looks back to determine the frequency of exposure of risk factors present in each group. B: useful for rare diseases. L: confounding, suitable control group, recall bias
Back
Case control
Card 3
Front
These studies observe large groups of individuals, record their exposure to risk factors and gather data going forwards. L: observational, no cause and effect, confounding, inefficient for rare diseases or those with long latency
Back
Card 4
Front
These studies randomly assign participants into an experimental group or control. It is used when uncertain about treatment or exposure can be modified. B: random, low confounding. L: volunteer bias, generalisability to other populations/environment
Back
Card 5
Front
A detailed and comprehensive search strategy of published literature for a clinical question/hypothesis
Comments
No comments have yet been made