Skill in critically evaluating evidence leads researchers to fruitful research strategies and risk assessors to rigorous defensible assessments. How does one develop a scoring rationale (i.e. a recipe for skilled evidence evaluation) that can produce consistent and valid grading by multiple explorers?
Hello,
The quality/strength of data hinges on its methodology. If toxicology studies, there are protocol guidance documents such of the OECD. If epidemiology studies, there are recent papers regarding this issue:
Money et al., 2013. A systemic approach for evaluating and scoring human data. Reg Tox Pharm 66 (241-247)
See also:
Health Canada (2009). Guidance Document for Preparing a Submission for Food Health Claims. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, Health Products and Food Branch, Food Directorate, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences
IARC (2006a). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Preamble (amended January 2006). World Health Organization (WHO). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Loso M, Tugwell P (2011). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. Ottawa (ON): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_4epidemiology/oxford.asp
I have probably missed some others.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology