• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • COVID-19
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • COVID-19
Your Practice

Levels of Evidence – How to Rate the Quality of a Study

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

 

The major goal of the USPSTF is to provide a reliable and accurate source of evidence-based recommendations on preventative services. The overarching question that the Task Force seeks to answer for every preventive service is whether evidence suggests that provision of the service would improve health outcomes if implemented in a general primary care population 

Assessing the Quality of a Study

The concept of ‘levels of evidence’ follows the NAM standard that quality of evidence should be an integral part of medical guideline development. Note that the NAM does not prescribe a single rating system. Different professional bodies may use different scoring systems. What is important is that ‘levels of evidence’ be readily apparent to the guideline reader. The same approach can be used when reviewing a paper.

Assess the quality of a study by asking 3 basic questions:

  1. Is the study Interventional: do the investigators ‘intervene’ in the management of the study subject? Or does nature take its course?
  2. If yes to the above, is the study randomized?
  3. Did the authors include a section describing how they determined that they included enough study subjects to draw conclusions?

Level I Evidence – interventional study – randomized

  • Randomized control trial (RCT) – study subjects are placed into an experimental versus a control group in a random fashion, beyond the control of the investigators
  • Even unknown or unanticipated effects will hopefully balance out between the two groups
  • The ‘non-exposed’ group can receive either a placebo or alternate drug, test, or management plan

Level II-1  Evidence – interventional study – not  randomized

  • Allocation to the experimental versus control group is left to the investigators and therefore bias is more likely than Level I

Level II-2 Evidence – observational study – no intervention by the researchers

(a) Cohort study – these are studies where the starting point is a particular exposure

  • Study subjects are classified as ‘exposed’ or ‘not exposed’ and followed for a period of time
  • Timing can be prospective (following study subjects for a prescribed amount of time) or retrospective – looking back through charts
  • The rate of outcome can be compared between the exposed and unexposed group and relative risks can be determined

(b) Case control studies – these are ‘retrospective’ studies  – which means that the events or interventions being studied have already taken place in the past and the outcome of interest drives the design, rather than the exposure (see cohort study, above)

  • A group who had the outcome of interest (for example cesarean section) is matched to a group that did not
  • The intervention of interest is then assessed in both groups (to continue the example – exposure to an epidural during labor)
    • The odds of undergoing a cesarean section following exposure to an epidural can then be compared to the odds of vaginal delivery following exposure to an epidural
  • These studies can determine association but not causation

Level II-3 Evidence – a ‘snapshot’ in time

Cross sectional studies – At any given time, what is the exposure and outcome?

  • Useful if looking at prevalence of a disorder as well as potential variables
  • For example, one could look at prevalence of uterine cancer in a particular population, based on age or exposure to hormonal therapy

  • These studies will often assess other factors (e.g., socioeconomic level) to make sure the variable of interest is truly an independent factor

Level III Evidence – other studies with essentially minimal design, ‘descriptive’  and lowest level of evidence

  • Case study – description of clinical features related to a particular topic of interest
  • Expert opinion – individual expert opinion was previously used frequently for recommendations but now used in the absence of better study design
  • Used in the context of expert panels and committees and may be important when data is lacking or research is ongoing

SYNOPSIS:

“Level of evidence” is a standardized way to determine the quality of a research project, which is based on study design. Clinical trials are ‘interventional’, if researchers intervene and are the highest level of evidence, followed by lower levels of evidence where observational approaches are used and ‘nature is allowed to take its course’.  Ultimately, the goal of any such rating system is to help clinicians provide evidenced-based care to patients and aid in public health policy.

KEY POINTS:

  • Certain topics of interest are not always amenable to RCTs and may require other approaches.
    • In the case of rare outcomes, case-control studies may be more practical
  • Because an RCT has not been done does not mean that something is not true or valid
    • An intervention that has been proven not to work via an RCT is not the same as an intervention that has shown promise using other study designs but has not yet been studied using an RCT
  • Blinding investigators is another important way of limiting bias, but is not always practical or realistic – for example, some surgical interventions
  • Always check to see if there is a section describing how the investigators determined the appropriate number of study subjects.  If a study is too small, an important difference may exist but statistical significance will not be achieved

Learn More – Primary Sources:

USPSTF: Update on Methods: Estimating Certainty and Magnitude of Net Benefit

Introducing the “Level of Evidence” to Obstetrics & Gynecology

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine: Study design

Cambridge University BHRU Video: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP): Randomised Controlled Trial Standard Checklist

Want to hear about the latest clinical summaries via ObG Insider?

Get Your Free e-Newsletter »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
All Your Practice Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Results From the Landmark Trial on Tranexamic Acid for Postpartum Hemorrhage
Results of the DiRECT Trial: Can Weight Loss in a Primary Care Setting Achieve Remission of Type 2 Diabetes?
PURE Study Results – Carbs vs Fat Intake to Reduce Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality?

Sections

  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • COVID-19

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site