Suggested checklist for writing cohort studies (STROBE checklist)2
Only 6/22 items on checklist adequately described
* Y = adequate; N = inadequate; ? = unsure/not reported; n/a = not applicable
Evaluation, limitations & suggestions for improvements
An interesting topic of research with an appropriate study design for generating incidence data and demonstrating associations. However, the reporting of the trial is inadequate and much of the required information is missing to fully assess the quality of the trial (only 6 / 22 STROBE criteria are met). The validity of the conclusion is therefore hard to ascertain. Re-writing the paper according to the STROBE recommendations would improve this paper and correct some of the omissions (e.g. the study design should be stated in the title, the scientific rationale and hypotheses need to justified in the introduction, eligibility criteria and reasons for exclusion of participants, sample size justification, how statistical studies are applied- they are described but not presented etc). Further methods for reducing confounding and bias should also be discussed (see Kent, W. Why not just flip a coin? Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials:Educational article [Internet]. Version 8. Open Journal of Medicine. 2011 Jun 13. Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/w-kent/why-not-just-flip-a-coin-randomisation/1blm6ty1i8a7z/4) as well as the advantages and limitations of different trial designs (see Kent, W. The advantages and disadvantages of observational and randomised controlled trials in evaluating new interventions in medicine:Educational article [Internet]. Version 6. Open Journal of Medicine. 2011 Jun 9. Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/w-kent/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of/1blm6ty1i8a7z/8).
Competing interests: No competing interests.
Invited by the author to review this article? : No
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?: No
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Foundation trainee in orthopaedics and sports scientist
How to cite: Kent W .Critical appraisal[Review of the article 'Bladder Stones in Catheterized Spinal Cord Injured Patients in Nigeria ' by Olawepo A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00829
Critical appraisal1
Criteria
Comment
Evaluation*
Research Question
Study design:
Prospective cohort study
CRD evidence level = 3a
Population:
68 of 89 patients with SCI at 1 centre in Nigeria.
Y
Intervention/
Exposure:
1. 18 of 22 with catheter encrustation had Bladder stones on USS scan
2. 37 UTI of which 27 had bladder stones
Y
Comparison/
Control:
1. 7 of 46 without catheter encrustation had bladder stones
2. 0 OF 31 WITHOUT UTI had bladder stones
Y
Outcome:
CGO
EGO
1
15.2%
81.8%
2
0%
72.9%
3
Y
Follow-up duration:
3 months
Y
Minimizing bias, confounding & chance
Recruitment
Randomization
N
Inclusion criteria
N
Exclusion criteria
N
N
Allocation
N/A
Maintenance
N/A
Measurement
blinding
N
objectivity
N
N
Statistical analysis
Sample size calc.
N
ES
Y
p & precision (95%CI)
N
Intention to Rx
N
N
Outcomes
Relative risk (RR) = EGO/CGO
OUTCOME 1 RR = (18/22)/(7/46) = 5.38 Outcome 2. RR n/a
Risk (Absolute) difference (RD) = CGO – EGO
Outcome 1. RD = 0.66
NNT = 1/RD
=1.5
Adequacy of reporting
Suggested checklist for writing cohort studies (STROBE checklist)2
Only 6/22 items on checklist adequately described
* Y = adequate; N = inadequate; ? = unsure/not reported; n/a = not applicable
Evaluation, limitations & suggestions for improvements
An interesting topic of research with an appropriate study design for generating incidence data and demonstrating associations. However, the reporting of the trial is inadequate and much of the required information is missing to fully assess the quality of the trial (only 6 / 22 STROBE criteria are met). The validity of the conclusion is therefore hard to ascertain. Re-writing the paper according to the STROBE recommendations would improve this paper and correct some of the omissions (e.g. the study design should be stated in the title, the scientific rationale and hypotheses need to justified in the introduction, eligibility criteria and reasons for exclusion of participants, sample size justification, how statistical studies are applied- they are described but not presented etc). Further methods for reducing confounding and bias should also be discussed (see Kent, W. Why not just flip a coin? Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials:Educational article [Internet]. Version 8. Open Journal of Medicine. 2011 Jun 13. Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/w-kent/why-not-just-flip-a-coin-randomisation/1blm6ty1i8a7z/4) as well as the advantages and limitations of different trial designs (see Kent, W. The advantages and disadvantages of observational and randomised controlled trials in evaluating new interventions in medicine:Educational article [Internet]. Version 6. Open Journal of Medicine. 2011 Jun 9. Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/w-kent/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of/1blm6ty1i8a7z/8).
No competing interests.
No
No
None
Foundation trainee in orthopaedics and sports scientist