(Consider how insightful the findings are to this field of research; and how novel/original/detailed the findings are) 0 = Contributes no/very little value 1 = Contributes some value 2 = Contributes a lot of value Evidence from article: Question 3: Methodological robustness How methodologically robust is the study?
(Consider suitability of research design/analysis; depth of analysis; potential for bias) 0 = Serious methodological issues 1 = Some methodological issues 2 = Methodologically robust Evidence from article: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
It is methodologically robust, UK-wide and comprehensive – and its results are both comforting and worrying.
The challenge is to identify methodologically robust evidence.
Finally, based on these discussions, description of a methodologically robust, definitive clinical trial will be proposed.
Nevertheless, such research and design often lacks a proper explanatory basis and methodologically robust operationalisation.
There are relatively few methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations concerned with CRC.
We substantively tailored our investigation to a less research population using the strongest available nationally representative data set and applied substantively evolving models that are methodologically robust.
To provide researchers with an efficient yet methodologically robust method to design and analyze studies of the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions targeted at medical errors.
We consider these results to be methodologically robust but suggest caution in interpreting the results due to poor response rates and possible volunteer bias.
Despite the number of HSUVs published, there is not a set of HSUVs that are methodologically robust with a full range of values for health states of interest appropriate for the use in economic evaluation of CRC.
