This document provides a worksheet to critically appraise a cohort study. It lists questions to consider regarding selection of exposed and non-exposed cohorts, ascertainment of exposures and outcomes, follow-up duration, accounting for confounders, and strengths and limitations of the study.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
20 views
Cohort Worksheet
This document provides a worksheet to critically appraise a cohort study. It lists questions to consider regarding selection of exposed and non-exposed cohorts, ascertainment of exposures and outcomes, follow-up duration, accounting for confounders, and strengths and limitations of the study.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A COHORT STUDY
COHORT WORKSHEET
Citation:
Are the results valid?
1. Was there a clearly defined, focused research question? What was the study question?
2. How was the exposed cohort selected?
Was there a well defined selection procedure for inclusion into the cohort? What proportion of eligible subjects was actually included?
3. How was the non exposed cohort
selected? Was this cohort drawn from the same source population as the exposed cohort? Was there a well defined selection procedure for inclusion into the cohort? What proportion of eligible subjects was actually included?
4. How were the main exposures
ascertained? Were the exposures clear, specific and measurable? Any likelihood of exposure misclassification?
5. Was the cohort free of the disease
(outcome) at the start of follow-up? Were only people at risk of the outcome included?
6. Was duration of follow-up adequate (i.e.
long enough for main outcomes to occur)?
Source: Adapted from 1) Newcastle Ottawa Scale [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm); 2) 1
Reader’s Guide to Critical Appraisal of Cohort Studies. BMJ 2005 (3 article series); 3) Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45; and 4) Guyatt & Rennie. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, AMA Press, 2002. Compiled by Madhu Pai [[email protected]] CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A COHORT STUDY COHORT WORKSHEET
7. Was follow-up complete? Were efforts
made to limit the loss to follow-up? What was the rate of attrition and was loss to follow-up similar in the exposed and non exposed cohorts?
8. What were the primary and secondary
outcomes of the study? How well were the outcomes measured? Was the outcome clear, specific and measurable? Were surrogate outcomes used?
9. Were outcomes measures similarly in
exposed and non exposed cohorts? Was outcome ascertainment influenced by knowledge of the exposure status (i.e. lack of blinding)?
10. How comparable were the exposed and
non-exposed cohorts? Have the authors identified all potentially important confounders? Is there information on how the potential confounders are distributed between the comparison groups? What confounders were adjusted for and was the adjustment adequate? Is residual confounding a concern?
Any other potential biases in this study?
Potential for selection bias?
Source: Adapted from 1) Newcastle Ottawa Scale [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm); 2) 2
Reader’s Guide to Critical Appraisal of Cohort Studies. BMJ 2005 (3 article series); 3) Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45; and 4) Guyatt & Rennie. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, AMA Press, 2002. Compiled by Madhu Pai [[email protected]] CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A COHORT STUDY COHORT WORKSHEET
Potential for information bias?
Potential for confounding?
Was there a clear rationale for the sample
size estimation?
Are the analytic strategies clearly described?
Were the data analytic methods appropriate for the research question and study design?
What are the results?
What are the study results?
1. How strong was the association
between exposure and outcome (e.g. rate ratio or hazard ratio or odds ratio)?
2. How precise was the estimate of the
association (i.e. confidence intervals around the point estimates or p-values)?
Source: Adapted from 1) Newcastle Ottawa Scale [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm); 2) 3
Reader’s Guide to Critical Appraisal of Cohort Studies. BMJ 2005 (3 article series); 3) Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45; and 4) Guyatt & Rennie. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, AMA Press, 2002. Compiled by Madhu Pai [[email protected]] CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A COHORT STUDY COHORT WORKSHEET
In summary: What are the major strengths of this study?
What are the major limitations of this study?
Are there any major ethical concerns with this study?
Source: Adapted from 1) Newcastle Ottawa Scale [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm); 2) 4
Reader’s Guide to Critical Appraisal of Cohort Studies. BMJ 2005 (3 article series); 3) Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45; and 4) Guyatt & Rennie. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, AMA Press, 2002. Compiled by Madhu Pai [[email protected]]
The Identification of Autistic Adults’ Perception of Their Own Diagnostic Pathway: A Research Dissertation Submitted for the Degree of Master of Autism at Sheffield Hallam University
From A Biomedical Scientist to A Clinical Scientist The UK Science Training Programme via Equivalence (STPE) Step-by-Step Process: Continuing Professional Development in Pathology For Medical Laboratory Professionals
Mastering Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: A Science-Backed Guide for Health Professionals: Applying Research and Real-World Strategies for Mindfulness-Based Interventions