Critical appraisal:Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK 2010 1

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol 2010 Jun;17(3):17-27 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567623.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

systematic review — All design types, including case series, controlled studies, controlled trials, and reviews were included.

Number of Patients:

858


Includes an economic evaluation

yes

Evidence ratings

Level of evidence

I

Risk of bias
High risk of bias Comments: Primary review aim was to examine whether the use of telemedicine videoconferencing systems as a real-time link between providers and patients for the purpose was efficacious for the assessment, monitoring, and management of oncology patients, with system costs just one of a range of outcomes eligible for inclusion in the review.

Risk of bias assessment: systematic review

Studies included in the review
Was an adequate search strategy used?
Adequate – search terms and/or choice of databases could have been improved upon
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate and applied in an unbiased way?
Adequate – inclusion criteria were pre-specified and applied by one person
Were the studies assessed for quality (relating to the minimisation of biases)?
Adequate – some problems with quality issues or assessed by one person only
Were the characteristics and results of individual studies appropriately summarised?
No
The following questions are only relevant for systematic reviews that pooled data
Were the methods used for pooling the data appropriate?
No pooling
If there was heterogeneity, were sources of heterogeneity explored?
No pooling
Size of effect
5 Reason for decision: Cost outcome results were presented as a qualitative summary only.
Relevance of evidence
1 Additional comments: Categorised as level I evidence, but the systematic review did not identify any RCTs (level II studies).

Categorised as a relevance rating of 1, although this was only the case for 6 of 19 studies included in the review.

Result of appraisal

Jutta's exclamation mark icon.png Excluded

Reason for decision

Systematic review did not identify any level II studies, and the outcomes relating to costs were described qualitatively only.

Comments

Only 6 of the 19 studies included in the review reported economic evaluations

Completed by

Dr Lisa Mackenzie


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


Article
Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol 2010 Jun;17(3):17-27 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567623.
Assigned to
User:Lisa.mackenzie
Topic area
Guidelines:
Property "Appraisal topic" (as page type) with input value "Guidelines:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Clinical question
Form
Form:Critical appraisal


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment