Quality Evidence, Production, Grading and Reporting

These featured links relate to producing, grading, and reporting of knowledge translation projects. What are the best methods for evaluating research evidence? Here are a few helpful resources for grantees that are nearing the end of their grant cycles as well as those starting to plan their next project.

AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) was developed in response to the growing presence of systematic reviews in evidence-based health care. AMSTAR can be used to develop and evaluate reviews, as a guide to how to conduct reviews, and as an aid to teaching about systematic reviews.

AQASR (Assessing the Quality and Applicability of Systematic Reviews) is a guide to help clinicians, administrators, and researchers ask critical questions to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review, both in general and as relevant to their particular concerns.

Campbell Collaboration

  • The Campbell Library
    The Campbell Library is home to three series, including all those systematic reviews registered with the Campbell Collaboration, a series on methods, and a series outlining Campbell Policies and Guidelines.
  • KTDRR Webcast #4 KTDRR webcast demonstrating how to use AQASR.

The Cochrane Collaboration

  • The Cochrane Library
    The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1465-1858) is a collection of six databases that contain different types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making, and a seventh database that provides information about Cochrane groups.
  • RevMan
    Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) is the software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews. It allows you to prepare the text, build the tables showing the characteristics of studies and the comparisons in the review, and add study data. It can also perform meta-analyses and present results graphically.
  • Cochrane Summaries
    A searchable database linking to plain language summaries of all of Cochrane’s systematic reviews.

CONSORT Statement (2010)
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials. It offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation.

Sean Grant, CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066913/

The EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines.

GRADE working group
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (short GRADE) working group began in the year 2000 as an informal collaboration of people with an interest in addressing the shortcomings of grading systems in health care. The working group has developed a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading quality (or certainty) of evidence and strength of recommendations. Many international organizations have provided input into the development of the GRADE approach which is now considered the standard in guideline development.

PEDro Database
The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) houses over 34,000 randomized trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines in physiotherapy. The randomized trials on PEDro are independently assessed for quality, which helps guide users to trials that are more likely to be valid and contain relevant information.

PRISMA Statement
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.

What Works Clearinghouse
The What Works Clearinghouse reviews the evidence of effectiveness of programs, policies, or practices by using a consistent and transparent set of standards.