Table 1 |
||||
|
Example of an evidence profile quality assessment given to the evaluators for them to grade in the pilot study. Example question: Should depressed patients in primary care be treated with SSRIs rather than tricyclics? |
||||
|
Outcome: Depression severity (measured with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Studies |
Design |
Quality |
Consistency |
Directness |
|
|
||||
|
8 trials Citalopram 38 trials Fluoxetine 25 trials Fluvoxamine 2 trials Nefazodone 18 trials Paroxetine 4 trials Sertaline 4 trials Velafaxine |
RCTs |
No serious flaws |
No important inconsistency |
Some uncertainty about relevance (outcome measure) |
|
|
||||
|
Outcome: Transient side effects (drop-out from 6 week treatment) |
||||
|
|
||||
|
8 trials Citalopram 50 trials Fluoxetine 27 trials Fluvoxamine 4 trials Nefazodone 23 trials Paroxetine 6 trials Sertaline 5 trials Velafaxine |
RCTs |
No serious flaws |
No important inconsistency |
Some uncertainty about relevance (outcome measure) |
|
|
||||
|
Outcome: Poisoning fatalities |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Office for National Statistics (British) |
Observational data (national statistics) |
Serious flaw, population based Reporting bias |
Only one study |
Direct |
|
|
||||
|
Atkins et al. BMC Health Services Research 2005 5:25 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-25 |
||||
