Therapy: Critical Appraisal: Part 1 (Validity)

  • Kameshwar Prasad


Critical appraisal has four main parts:


Prognostic Factor Acute Appendicitis Laparoscopic Appendectomy Hawthorne Effect Acute Bacterial Meningitis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lebel MH, Freji BJ, Syrogiannopoulos GA, Chrane DF, Hoyt MJ, Stewart SM, et al. Dexamethasone therapy for bacterial meningitis: results of two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:964–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II Investigators. Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Byington RP, Curb JD, Mattson ME. Assessment of double-blindness at the conclusion of the beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial. JAMA. 1985;253:1733–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Guyatt G, Rennie D, editors. User’s guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002. ( Scholar
  3. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270:2598–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Peto R, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer. 1977;35:1–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1410–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72:233–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias, dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med. 1984;3:409–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kameshwar Prasad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Neurology Neurosciences Centre, and Clinical Epidemiology UnitAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew Delhi DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations