Interesting reading this as it makes it clear where EBM falls apart, and starts short in the firs place. Comparing to the link at the bottom on formulation of research quesions it also shows why it has led to iterative stuck in rut because it doesn't answer a hypothesis or move anything forward literatures too?
And yes, sadly even within this cropped framework BPSm don't even tick the boxes of the compulsory stuff (one of the biggies in their research being rated very low quality was they didn't even get the patient population right to make sure everyone they sampled had the condition they were generalising the results for)
I read the top page which listst the following,which aren't
too wrong in being twisted from the core principles of good research design (but really it should be 'what is your question, then how does that translate to what is my Research Question' and does that research question actually answer the question ie is it valid/internally consistent etc):
Critical appraisal is the systematic evaluation of clinical research papers in order to establish:
- Does this study address a clearly focused question?
- Did the study use valid methods to address this question?
- Are the valid results of this study important?
- Are these valid, important results applicable to my patient or population?
If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, you can save yourself the trouble of reading the rest of it.
Where the switch and bait issue occurs is when what they term in point 1. as 'clearly focused question' then becomes translated in the page underneath:
https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/asking-focused-questions
It doesn't seem to really care what the question is trying to achieve, whether it is valid. And as for pretending it is precise - it doesn't even metnion dose and whether that might vary. Or linking it back to the patient population in point 4. by noting whether the methods need controls from other patient populations, checking their population is representative etc.
So it at that point seems to be a lesson in making research more ambiguous, shady and less smart whilst labelling all of these changes with terms that infer you've done the opposite and made it more forensic.
And in fact then their list seems back to front, where instead of prompting thinking to make sure that the design is correct to be valid it seems like it is a case of pick your question then how do you
sell it as 'being valid' or 'important' or 'applicable'.
This all seems a far cry from the main principle of research design of 'is what you are actually asking [what are people really thinking they are being asked with the questions you've put down, what informaion and combo of information is influencing the objective measurement etc] what you
think you are asking [the Research Question]?'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6322175/
