Worksheet
 
Yes  
 
Can't Determine  
 
No  
 
NA  
1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)
 
2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?
 
3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to nutrition or dietetics practice?
 
4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)
 
1. Was the research question clearly stated?
 
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?
 
3. Were study groups comparable?
 
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described?
 
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?
 
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?
 
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?
 
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?
 
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?
 
10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?
 
Worksheet
 
Yes  
 
Can't Determine  
 
No  
 
NA  
1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?
 
2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?
 
3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to nutrition or dietetics practice?
 
4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?
 
1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?
 
2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?
 
3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified and appropriate? Were selection methods unbiased?
 
4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methods specified, appropriate, and reproducible?
 
5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?
 
6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?
 
7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently across studies and groups? Was there appropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?
 
8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels of significance and/or confidence intervals included?
 
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations of the review identified and discussed?
 
10. Was bias due to the review’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?
 
 
Research Design and Implementation: Primary Research
  Albert CM, Cook NR et al, 2008 Bazzano l, Reynolds K et al, 2006 Bønaa K, Njølstad I et al, 2006 Ebbing M, Bleie O et al, 2008 Ray JG, Kearon C et al, 2007
Overall Quality Rating Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
Relevance Questions
1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to nutrition or dietetics practice?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
3. Were study groups comparable?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?
Yes
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
 
Research Design and Implementation: Review Articles
  Albert CM, Cook NR et al, 2008 Bazzano l, Reynolds K et al, 2006 Bønaa K, Njølstad I et al, 2006 Ebbing M, Bleie O et al, 2008 Ray JG, Kearon C et al, 2007
Overall Quality Rating Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
Relevance Questions
1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?  
Yes
 
     
2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?  
Yes
 
     
3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to nutrition or dietetics practice?  
Yes
 
     
4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?  
Yes
 
     
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?  
Yes
 
     
2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?  
Yes
 
     
3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified and appropriate? Were selection methods unbiased?  
Yes
 
     
4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methods specified, appropriate, and reproducible?  
Yes
 
     
5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?  
Yes
 
     
6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?  
Yes
 
     
7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently across studies and groups? Was there appropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?  
Yes
 
     
8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels of significance and/or confidence intervals included?  
Yes
 
     
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations of the review identified and discussed?  
Yes
 
     
10. Was bias due to the review’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?  
Yes