CAT

(CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE TOPIC)

Jurnal ini mempunyai nilai validitas dan relevansi
yang tinggi karena :

Kelebihan:
• Dikeluarkan oleh tim yang mempunyai tim peer
review (International Journal of Anatomy,
Radiology and Surgery, 2016)
• Studi ini tidak disponsori oleh organisasi yang
dapat berdampak pada desain dan hasil studi
• Jika informasi ini benar maka akan merubah
sikap kita terhadap cara kita dalam melayani
pasien
• Memiliki kemiripan dan dapat dipergunakan di
senter kita
Kekurangan :
• Penelitian dilakukan hanya di 1 tempat
( single centre )
 Determine the Intent of the Article

• Jurnal ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan jumlah

graft yang take, komplikasi post operasi, dan
bertahannya STSG pada manajemen luka pasien
diabetes dan non diabetes.
• Katagori Klinis: terapeutik
• Penelitian ini adalah prospective komparative
Clinical category Description Prefered Study Design

Therapy Tests the effectiveness of a Randomized, double-

treatment, such as a drug, surgical blinded, placebo-
procedure, or other intervention controlled trial
Diagnosis Measures the validity (is it dependable?) Cross-sectional survey
and reliability (will the same results be (comparing the new test
obtained every time?) of a diagnostic with a reference standard)
test, or evaluates the effectiveness of a
test in detecting disease at a
presymptomatic stage when applied to a
large population
Causation Assesses whether a substance is
Cohort or case-control
related to the development of an illness
or condition
Prognosis
Determines the outcome of a disease Longitudinal cohort study
 Level 1 of Evidence
Level Therapy/Prevention, Prognosis Diagnosis
Aetiology/Harm

1a SR (with homogeneity*) SR (with SR (with homogeneity*) of

of RCTs homogeneity*) of Level 1 diagnostic
inception cohort studies; CDR† with 1b
studies; CDR† studies from different
validated in clinical centres
different
populations

1b Individual RCT (with Individual inception Validating** cohort study

narrow Confidence cohort study with > with good††† reference
Interval‡) 80% follow-up; standards; or CDR†
CDR† validated in a tested within one
single population clinical centre

1c All or none All or none case-series Absolute SpPins and

SnNouts††
 Level 2 of Evidence

Level Therapy/Prevention, Prognosis Diagnosis

Aetiology/Harm
2a SR (with homogeneity*) SR (with SR (with homogeneity*) of
of cohort studies homogeneity*) of Level >2 diagnostic studies
either retrospective
cohort studies or
untreated control
groups in RCTs
2b Individual cohort study Retrospective cohort Exploratory** cohort study
(including low quality study or follow-up of with good††† reference
RCT; e.g., <80% follow- untreated control standards; CDR† after
up) patients in an RCT; derivation, or validated
Derivation of CDR† or only on split-sample§§§ or
validated on split- databases
sample§§§ only
2c "Outcomes" Research; "Outcomes" Research
Ecological studies
 Level 3,4,5 of Evidence
Level Therapy/Prevention,
Aetiology/Harm
3a SR (with homogeneity*)
of case-control studies
3b Individual Case-Control
Study
4 Case-series (and poor
quality cohort and case-
control studies§)
5 Expert opinion without
explicit critical appraisal,
or based on physiology,
bench research or "first
principles"
Prognosis Diagnosis
SR (with homogeneity*) of
3b and better studies
Non-consecutive study; or
without consistently
applied reference standards
Case-series (and poor Case-control study, poor or
quality prognostic non-independent reference
cohort studies***) standard
Expert opinion without Expert opinion without
explicit critical explicit critical appraisal, or
appraisal, or based on based on physiology, bench
physiology, bench research or "first
research or "first principles"
principles"
Grades of Recommendation

A consistent level 1 studies

B consistent level 2 or 3 studies or

extrapolations from level 1 studies
C level 4 studies or extrapolations from
level 2 or 3 studies
D level 5 evidence or troublingly
inconsistent or inconclusive studies of
any level
Terima Kasih