Critical appraisal:Basu KK, Pick B, de Caestecker JS 2004

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

Basu KK, Pick B, de Caestecker JS. Audit of a Barrett's epithelium surveillance database. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004 Feb;16(2):171-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15075990.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

case series

Number of Patients:

138


Includes an economic evaluation

no

Evidence ratings

Level of evidence

IV

Risk of bias
High risk of bias Comments: Although this is not a very large series and simply a case series, the strengths are reasonable follow-up period (mean 2.9 years (1-10) and specific analysis on LGD patients (10 patients, initially 16 but 6 downgraded to regenerative). Specifically focuses on outcome in LGD patients so relevant for this paper

Risk of bias assessment: case series

Subject selection:
Highly selected or not described (e.g. single-institution study)
Were the outcome measures blind to pre/post-intervention?
No, but objective measures used
Follow-up complete and all patients included in the analysis?
Reasonable (follow-up >80%)
Size of effect
5 Reason for decision: Please replace this text and briefly describe the reasons for your rating
Relevance of evidence
2 Additional comments: relevence rating of 2 as effect in diagnosis of LGD which is a proven surrogate outcome (risk factor) for cancer
Result of appraisal

Jutta's tick icon.png Included




Completed by

Dr Andrew Taylor MBBS MD FRACP


Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Basu KK, Pick B, de Caestecker JS. Audit of a Barrett's epithelium surveillance database. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004 Feb;16(2):171-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15075990.
Assigned to
User:Andrew.taylor
Topic area
Guidelines:Barrett's
Clinical question
Form
Form:Critical appraisal


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment