SDOH AND SOCIAL CHANGE
jaydenson
AppendixE3_AnecdotalEvidenceAppraisalTool_2025FINAL_FORM.docx
Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines
Appendix E3
Anecdotal Evidence Appraisal Tool
|
Fill in this data collection table after completing the quality assessment below (see Instructions in Appendix G2: Individual Evidence Summary Tool for more information). |
||||||||
|
Article Number |
Author, date, title |
Type of evidence |
Population, size, and setting |
Intervention |
Findings that help answer the EBP question |
Measures used |
Limitations |
Level of support for decision-making? |
| Enter # | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text |
|
*For definitions of terms in bold print see Appendix F: Evidence Terminology and Considerations Guide
|
||||||||
Section I: Quality Appraisal |
||||||||
Complete the checklist below for the corresponding sub-type of evidence. Note, that the headers within each checklist are used for organization and may not match the exact language from the article or report being appraised. |
||||||||
Expert Opinion, Position Statements, and Book Chapters |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Author(s) expertise |
||||
|
1. Does the author(s) know about the topic of interest as evidenced by previous publications on the topic, relevant professional or academic affiliations, related education/training, or other activities that suggest their expertise? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Purpose/objectives |
||||
|
1. Is the purpose/objective(s) clearly stated? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Reference to evidence |
||||
|
1. Is there a thorough reference to current literature on the topic? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Do the author(s) provide meaningful analysis (through insights or commentary) of existing evidence on the topic? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Summary/conclusions |
||||
|
1. Is it clear and logical how the authors reached their conclusion(s)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are recommendations clear? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
Case Report |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Introduction |
||||
|
1. Is there a short introduction to the case, including why it is relevant or important? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Patient information |
||||
|
1. Is patient-level data provided to address the clinical focus of the case study (this can include patient history, clinical findings, diagnosis, or timeline)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is there a thorough explanation of diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention(s)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Did the patient or caregiver provide informed consent? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Discussion |
||||
|
1. Is their meaningful interpretation of the patient information (see above)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are “lessons learned” clearly stated and based on the provided patient information? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Is there an insightful discussion of the case presentation regarding relevant medical literature? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is the information provided in a logical manner that is easy to follow? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
|
Programmatic Experiences |
||||
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Introduction |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
1. Is there a short introduction to the project, including why it is relevant or important? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is the purpose/objective of the project clear? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Project Information |
||||
|
1. Is there adequate information regarding the context of the project, including the setting and people involved? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is what the project team did (interventions) clearly described? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Was a tool, model, or framework used to plan and implement the project? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
4. Are the findings or impact of the project provided? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Discussion |
||||
|
1. Does the author(s) provide insights into the project’s successes and areas for improvement? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are “lessons learned” clearly stated? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Is the project discussed in the context of currently available information on the intervention or problem it was addressing? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are you able to follow what the group did to implement and measure the success of the project? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
|
Reviews with an Unsystematic Approach (e.g. Scoping, Critical, Literature Reviews) |
||||
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Background/Introduction |
||||
|
1. Is a logical background and rationale for the review explained using current literature? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is the review question clear? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Methods |
||||
|
1. Did the review follow a model or guideline? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Do the authors clearly state what they are trying to measure or describe? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Do the authors explain how they selected the articles included in their review? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Results |
||||
|
1. Are findings from the included articles presented clearly? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Discussion |
||||
|
1. Does the discussion match what is reported in the results section? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is it clear how the authors arrived at their conclusions? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
© 2025 Johns Hopkins Health System 2
