1.

Dalam hal epidemiologi, kehadiran bias berarti bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini
telah menyimpang dari kebenaran.
2. Bias dapat dikaitkan dengan kesempatan (eror acak) atau metode studi (bias
sistematis)
3. eror acak akan mempengaruhi ketepatan penelitian.
4. Bias sistematis memiliki arah dan hasil dalam terlalu tinggi atau meremehkan
kebenaran

- Cohort atau studi longitudinal melibatkan menindaklanjuti dua atau lebih

kelompok pasien untuk mengamati yang mengembangkan hasil kepentingan.
- Calon kohort telah disamakan dengan percobaan alam (hasil diukur dalam
kelompok besar selama jangka kali)
- Cohort dapat juga dilakukan secara retrospektif (memeriksa data medis catatan
/, catatan registri kematian dan database masuk rumah sakit)
Box 2. Key methodological points to consider in the apprasial of sistemic
reviewers and meta-analysis
1. Were are relevant studies included (was the search comprehnsive, did it
exclude articel on basis of publication status or language and was the
potential for publication bias assessed)?
2. Were selected acticle appraised and data extracted by two independent
reviewers?
3. Was sufficiant detail provided about the primary studies, including
descriptions of the patients intervention and outcomes?
4. Was the quality of the primary studies assessed?
5. Did the researchers assess the appropriateness of combining results to
calculate a summary measure?
Box 3. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of rendomized
controlled trials
1. Was the process of treatment allocation truly random?
2. Would participants have been able to know or guess their treatment
allocation?
3. Were participants and researchers blinded to participants treatment
group?
4. Were outcomes assessed objecively?
5. Were all participants who were randomly allocated a treatment accounted
for in the final analysis?
6. Were all participants data analyzed in the group to which they were
randomly allocated?

Box 4. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of a cohort study

1. Is the study prospective or retrospective?
2. Is the cohort representative of a defined group or population?
3. Were all important confounding factor identified?

4. Were all important exposures and/or treatments, potential confunding

factor and outcomes measured accurately and objectively in all members
of the cohort?
5. Were there important losses to follow-up?
6. Were participants followed up for a sufficient lenght of time?
Box 5. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of a case-control
study
1. Were the cases clearly defined?
2. Were the cases representative of the defined population?
3. How were the control selected and were they drown from the same
population as the cases?
4. Were study measures identical for cases and control?
5. Were study measures objective or subjective and is recall bias likely if they
were subjective?

Box 6. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of a cross-sectional

study
1. Was the study sample clearly defined?
2. Was a representative sample achieved (e.g was the response rate
sufficiently high)?
3. Were all relevant exposures, potential confunding factor and outcomes
measured accurately
4. Were patients with a wide range of severity of disease assessed?

Box 7. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of a case study

1. Were cases identified prospectively or retrospectively?
2. Are the cases a representative sample (e.g a consecutive series of
individuals recruited from multiple centers) and similar to patients in your
practice?
3. Were all relevant exposures, potential confunding factors and outcomes
measured accurately?
Box 8. Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of a study
diagnosis accuracy
1. Does the sample of patients represent the full spectrum of patients with
and without the diagnosis of interest?
2. Was there a comparison with an appropriate gold-standard test?
3. Did all patient receive both the test under evaluation and the same goldstandard test?
4. Were the test performed independently with blinding af assesseors to the
result of the gold-standard test?
5. Were the cuts-offs that were used to classify patients as having a positive
test result clearly described?
Key points
1. Critical appraisal is a systemic process used to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of a reseacrh study

2.

Critical appraisal provided a basis for decisions on whether to use the

result of a study in clinical practice
3. Different study designs are prone to various sources of systemic bias
4. Design-specific, Critical appraisal checklists are usefull tools to help
assesses study quality
5. Assessments of other factors, including the importance of the research
question, the appropriateness of statistical analysis, the legitimacy of
conclusions and potential conflicts of interest are an important part of the
Critical appraisal process.