Skip to main content

Table 2 The four main components For evaluating reports

From: The use of evidence in public governmental reports on health policy: an analysis of 17 Norwegian official reports (NOU)

1. The mandate's description of the task
Was the committee asked to evaluate: (Yes/No)
A. The extent and the seriousness of the problem? B. The effectiveness of services in meeting needs created by the problem?
C. Alternative services? D. Economic consequences?
E. Values, such as the preferences of patients or ethical considerations?  
2. The strategy used by the committee to gather research information (Yes/No)
A. Did the report state that it was based upon research? B. Did the report state how research was identified?
3. The use of evidence in recommendations and in the summary (Score 1-5)
A. Recommendations: Does the committee clearly state how it weighed up health needs, the effectiveness of treatment, economic concerns, and other values? B. Is the summary clearly structured and easily understood by non-professionals?
4. Evaluation of the quality of scientific evidence (Score 1-5)
A. Relevance: Does the report make it clear for whom the results are relevant? B. Documentation: Does the presented evidence rely on research, and are references given?
C. Validity: Is the assessment of the validity of the evidence clear and well-founded? D. Size of effects: Is the size of effects clearly described?
E. Precision: Are confidence intervals identified and evaluated when relevant? F. Consistency: Are the findings consistent?
G. Consequences: Are the main consequences identified and assessed? H. Overall quality: What is the overall scientific quality?