Table 2 Sample review critiera for "Controlled Clinical Trial" submission.
From: Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract
Criterion | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
Hypothesis | 0 | Unstated |
1 | Clear, but not detailed | |
2 | Clear, comprehensive | |
Study Design | 0 | Inappropriate design |
1 | Acceptable design | |
2 | Superior design (Please note that if the best way to answer the study question is by a RCT, then a RCT gets 2 points) | |
Methods I | 0 | Non-randomized |
1 | Pseudo-randomized (day of the week, flip coin, etc) | |
2 | Randomized (random numbers tables, etc) | |
Methods II | 0 | Unblinded and outcome measure that are unblinded. |
1 | Unblinded or single-blinded with blinded outcome measures | |
2 | Double-blinded | |
Statistics | 0 | Inappropriate and poorly described statistical methods. |
1 | Appropriate but poorly described or reported. | |
2 | Appropriate and well reported (p-values/confidence intervals). | |
Presentation | 0 | Unclear, poorly organized and not conforming to CAEP format. |
1 | Unclear, poorly organized or not conforming to CAEP format. | |
2 | Clear, well organized and conforming to CAEP format | |
Originality | 0 | Repetition of previous work. |
1 | Unique slant on a common problem. | |
2 | Cutting edge, novel approach. | |
Impact | 0 | Will make no difference in practice |
1 | Repetition and with no unique features. | |
2 | Important outcome, but intervention may be difficult to implement in other settings. | |
3 | Important outcome, could change practice | |
4 | Important outcome, changes practice. | |
Overall Impression | 0 | Unacceptable |
1 | Very poor | |
2 | Poor | |
3 | Acceptable | |
4 | Good | |
5 | Very good | |
6 | Outstanding |