o 1996). Attending to finegrained methodological details to ensure that one has minimized the probability of committing an error is central to ensuring that the test in question is severe, and thus that the Severity Principle is satisfied. So, regardless of one's doctrinal commitment to Bayesianism or frequentism, the employment of tools like QATs to take into account detailed information about the methods used to generate the available evidence ought to seem reasonable. One of the simplest QATs is the Jadad scale, first developed in the 1990s to assess clinical studies in pain research. Here it is, in full: 1. Was the study described as randomized? 2. Was the study described as double blind? 3. Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? A 'yes' to question 1 and question 2 is given one point each. A 'yes' to question 3, in addition to a description of the number of withdrawals and dropouts in each of the trial sub-groups, and an explanation for the withdrawals or dropouts, receives one point. An additional point is given if the method of randomization is described in the paper, and the method is deemed appropriate. A final point is awarded if the method of blinding is described, and the method is deemed appropriate. Thus, a trial can receive between zero and five points on the Jadad scale. 8 The Jadad scale has been praised by some as being easy to use-it takes about ten minutes to complete for each study-which is an obvious virtue when a reviewer must assess hundreds of studies for a particular hypothesis. On the other hand, others complain that it is too simple, and that it has low inter-rater reliability (discussed in §3). I describe the tool here not to assess it but merely to provide an example of a QAT for illustration. In contrast to the simplicity of the Jadad scale, the Chalmers scale has 30 questions in several categories, which include the trial protocol, the statistical analysis, and the presentation of results. Similarly, the QAT developed by Cho and Bero (1994) has 24 questions. At a coarse grain some of the features on the Chalmers QAT and the Cho and Bero QAT are similar to the basic elements of the Jadad QAT: these scales both include questions about randomization, blinding, and subject withdrawal. (In §5 I briefly describe how Cho and Bero developed their QAT, as an illustration of the no-best-weight
o 1996). Attending to finegrained methodological details to ensure that one has minimize the probability of commit an error is central to ensuring that the examination in question is severe, and therefore that the Severity Principle is satisfied. So, regardless of one's doctrinal commitment to Bayesianism or frequentism, the use of creature like QATs to aim into account detailed data about the methods used to generate the available evidence ought to seem reasonable. One of the simplest QATs is the Jadad plate, first developed in the 1990s to tax clinical studies in pain inquiry. Here it is, in full: 1. Was the survey described as randomized? 2. Was the study described as double blind? 3. Was there a description of withdrawal and dropouts? A' yes' to question 1 and question 2 is given one point each. A' yes' to wonder 3, in addition to a description of the number of withdrawals and dropouts in each of the trial sub - groups, and an explanation for the withdrawals or dropouts, receives one detail. An additional point is feed if the method acting of randomization is identify in the paper, and the method is deem appropriate. A final distributor point is awarded if the method of blinding is trace, and the method is deemed appropriate. Thus, a trial can receive between zero and five points on the Jadad plate. 8 The Jadad scale has been praised by some as being easy to use - it takes about ten minutes to dispatch for each survey - which is an obvious virtue when a reviewer must assess hundreds of studies for a particular hypothesis. On the early hand, others complain that it is besides simple, and that it has broken inter - rater reliability (hash out in § 3). I describe the tool here not to measure it but merely to provide an model of a QAT for exemplification. In contrast to the chasteness of the Jadad scale, the Chalmers scale has 30 questions in several category, which include the trial protocol, the statistical analysis, and the presentation of results. Similarly, the QAT developed by Cho and Bero (1994) has 24 questions. At a coarse grain some of the feature on the Chalmers QAT and the Cho and Bero QAT are similar to the basic elements of the Jadad QAT: these scale both include questions about randomization, blinding, and subject withdrawal. (In § 5 I briefly describe how Cho and Bero develop their QAT, as an illustration of the no - best - weight
o 1996). Wttending to finegrained methodological detailv to ehsure thxt one has minimized the prouabioity if committing an error is centrwl to enwuriig that the test in quesbnon ia sevzrx, and thus that the Severhty Principle hs sctisfied. So, regardless of one's doctrynal cokmltment to Bayefianpsi or frequentism, the employment of tooms like QATs to take into account detailed inflrmahion about the metjods used ti gegwrate the avxilable evpbence ought to seem reasonable. One of the rimplzst QATs is tye Uddad scale, hirst qeveloped in the 1990s tm assesx clinical stuciev ib pain research. Here mt is, in full: 1. Was tre study geacribed as randomuzwd? 2. Wds tve sgydy deaccibsd as fouule blind? 3. Sas there a description of witndwqwals and drolouts? W 'res' to question 1 and question 2 is given ons point each. A 'yes' to qyestion 3, in addition jo a descryption of the number of withdrawals and dropouts hn earh of tme tfuap sub-groups, and an explanation for the withdrwsaks or dropouts, rcceives one point. Sn acqitional poinj is girsn if the method of gandomieation is descrybed in the paper, and the methoe is deemed cppeopriate. A final plint is awaxded ig the method of blinding is bescriged, and the method ia deemed approprixte. Tvus, a trial can receive beeween zeri anb five puintx on tre Jadad sfale. 8 The Jadad scale had beeu prahsed by sole as being easy to use-it takes about ten minotev tm complece for each study-whych is an obvipus vircue whdn a revieser musv assess hunqreds of studhgs for a partmcular hy[othwsis. On the uther hand, othrrs complcnn that ir is too simple, anv thxf it has low inctr-rqter reliabilitu (dksctsdev in §3). H describe tve tuol nere vot to assewr it but merely to provige ah example of a QAT fjr illusjration. Ig contrast to the simplicity of the Oadad rcale, thg Chalmers scale has 30 questions in severwl gategories, whych lnclode the tricl protocol, the statistical analysis, and the presentation if results. Similarli, tme QAT develpped fy Cho ang Bero (1994) has 24 questiobs. At a coarse grsin some of the featudes on the Fhalmers QAT and the Cho and Bero QAT are similar to the basic elements od the Oaqad QAT: theae svales bjch incltde enestions about ramdomization, blinding, and subjecv withdrawdl. (In §5 I briefly describe how Vhu and Bero dexeloped their QAT, as an jllustrayion of the no-best-weight
o 1996). Attending to finegrained methodological details that has minimized probability of committing ensuring the test in is severe, and that the Severity Principle is satisfied. regardless of one's doctrinal commitment to Bayesianism or frequentism, the employment of tools QATs to take into account detailed information about the methods used to generate available ought seem One of the simplest QATs is the Jadad scale, first developed in the 1990s to assess studies in pain research. Here it is, in 1. Was the study as randomized? 2. Was the described double blind? Was a of withdrawals and A 'yes' to question 1 and question 2 is given one point each. A 'yes' to question in addition description of number withdrawals dropouts in each trial sub-groups, and an explanation for dropouts, receives one point. An additional point is if the of randomization is described in the and the method is deemed appropriate. A final is awarded if the method of blinding is described, and the method is deemed appropriate. trial can receive between and five points the scale. The scale has praised by some as being easy to use-it takes about ten to complete for each study-which is an obvious virtue when must hundreds of studies a particular hypothesis. On other others complain that it simple, that inter-rater (discussed §3). I describe the here not to assess it merely to provide an illustration. In contrast to the simplicity of the scale, the Chalmers scale has 30 questions several categories, which include the trial protocol, the statistical analysis, and the of results. QAT developed by Cho and Bero (1994) has questions. At a coarse some of the features on the Chalmers QAT and Cho Bero QAT similar to the elements of the QAT: these scales questions about blinding, subject I briefly describe how Cho and developed QAT, as an illustration of no-best-weight
o 1996). Attending to finegrained meThodologicAl detAilS to EnSure That One has minimizeD The pRobability of committing An errOr IS cenTRaL to enSuring tHAt THE teSt In QueStIOn Is sevEre, And thus That the SevEriTy principle is sATiSfied. So, regArdLess of one's doCtrInal coMmItmENt to BAyeSianiSm or frEQuentiSm, the emplOyMEnt of tOOls like qats To taKe into account detaILeD Information aboUt the mEtHOdS USed To gEnerate the AvAilabLE evidenCE oUGHT to SEem reasonable. one of the simPLesT QATs iS tHe JADad scaLe, firSt DEveLoped in the 1990s To asSess cliniCal stuDIes in paIN researCh. Here It iS, in Full: 1. wAs ThE stUdY DesCRiBed AS raNdomized? 2. waS tHe stuDy deSCRIBed aS doUble Blind? 3. was there a descRipTion OF wiThdraWals aNd drOpOuts? A 'Yes' to qUestiOn 1 And question 2 is giVen oNe point eaCh. A 'YeS' to QuEstioN 3, In addiTioN to A descriPtion of THe nUmBER Of Withdrawals and dropOuTS In Each of thE trial SUb-GrOUps, and an ExPlaNatiON For thE witHDrAwals or dRopoutS, ReCeIves one PoInt. An aDdItiOnaL poinT Is giVen if tHe method Of ranDOmization is desCRibed in the papER, aND ThE MethOd iS deemed apprOpriATe. A fInal POiNt iS AwardEd if tHe MEtHOd of blinding is descrIbEd, and tHe metHod is deemed apPropriate. THUS, A trial caN recEIvE Between zero and Five pOints on the jAdad scalE. 8 The JAdad scalE has been pRAIsed by soMe aS beIng EasY TO uSe-it takes abouT TEn miNuTes to coMplEte for eAch StuDy-wHicH iS an obviouS virtue wHeN a ReViEweR must ASsess hunDrEds Of StuDies fOR a partIculaR hypOtHeSIs. ON the othER hAND, othErS cOmplAin ThAt it iS too SImpLe, and thAt it has loW inTEr-raTeR rEliabilIty (discussed iN §3). I Describe thE tOol Here noT TO assess iT but merely to provide an exAMple of a qAT For ilLustRation. In cOntRast to The SImplicIty of tHe JadAd ScaLE, The ChALMeRs sCaLe has 30 questIONs iN seveRaL catEgories, Which include the triAL prOtocol, the statIstIcal ANAlYsiS, AnD The PrESenTATion of results. SiMilarly, the qAt DeVeloped by CHO anD BEro (1994) has 24 qUestionS. At a cOArse graIn some of tHe featureS oN the cHAlmErs QAT and tHe Cho and bero QAT arE SimilAR tO the bAsiC elemeNtS of The JaDad QAT: THesE scalEs both InClude qUestiOnS about raNdomization, blinding, and sUbject WithdRawAl. (In §5 I brieFly DEscRibe how ChO and bero develoPed TheIr QAT, As aN IllusTratIOn Of tHE no-beSt-weIGht
o 1996). Attending to fine grained me thodo log ica ldeta ilsto ensure that onehas minimized the prob abili ty of c o mm ittin g an er r or i s c en tr alto en surin g t hat the  test in q ues ti on is severe ,  a nd thus th atthe Severity  Pr incipl eiss atisf ied . So,  regar d less o f one's d oc t rinalc ommitme n t  t o Ba yesianism or freq u en t ism, the emplo ymentof to o l s l ike  QATs to t ak e int o  accoun t  d e t a ile d  informationabout the m e tho ds use dtog enerat e the  a v ail able eviden ce o ught to s eem re a sonable .  One of  the s imp les t QA T sis  th eJ ada d  s cal e , f irst dev el op ed in  the 1 9 9 0s t o a sses s cli nical studies  in  pai n  re searc h. He re i tis, i n full : 1.Wa s the study des crib ed as ran dom iz ed?  2 . Was the st udy  de scribed  as dou b lebl i n d ?3. Was there a des cr i p ti on of wi thdraw a ls  a n d dropou ts ? A  'ye s '  to q uest i on  1 and q uestio n  2  i s given  o ne poi nt  ea ch.  A 'y e s' t o ques tion 3,in ad d ition to a des c ription of th e  n u m be r  ofwit hdrawals an d dr o pout s in ea cho f the  tria ls ub - groups, and an expl an ationfor t he withdrawal s or dropo u t s , receiv es o n ep oint. An addit ional  point isg iven ifthe m ethod of  randomiz a t ion is d esc rib edint h epaper, and th e meth od  is dee med  approp ria te.  Afin al  point is  awarded  i fth emet hod o f  blindin gisde scr ibed, and th e met hodis  d e eme d appro p ri a t e. T hu s,  a t ria lcan r ecei v e b etweenzero andfiv e  poi nt son theJadad scale.8The Jadadsc ale  has b e e n praise d by some as being easy to use- ittakes  abo ut ten mi nut es tocom p lete f or eac h stu dy -wh i c h isa n  o bvi ou s virtue w h e n a  revi ew er m ust ass ess hundreds of st u die s for a parti cul ar h y p ot hes i s. Onth e  ot h e r hand, otherscomplain t ha t  i t is too s i mpl e,  and th at it h as lo w  inter- rater rel iability(d iscu s s edin §3). Idescribe  the tool heren ot  to a sse ss itbu t m erely  to pr o vid e anexampl eof a Q AT fo rillustra tion. In contrast to th e simp licit y o f the Jad ads cal e, the Ch alme rs scale h as30quest ion s  in s ever a lcat e gorie s, w h ich inclu d ethe t ri al protocol , t hestati sti c al ana lysi s, and the presen t ation of resul ts.S i mil arl y , th eQAT developedbyCh o and Bero  ( 1994) has 2 4 questi on s . Ata coar se gra in some o ft he fea ture s o n the Cha lme rs QAT and  t he Cho an d Be ro  QAT a re sim i lart o  the basic eleme nts o f the J a dad  QAT:  t hese sc a lesboth inclu de question s abou t ra ndomi zation,  b lindin g,an d subjectw ithdrawal . (In  §5 I b ri efly  de scribe  how C ho an d Be ro  de veloped t h e ir QA T, asan i llust ra tion  of the n o -best-we igh t 
o 1996)._Attending to_finegrained methodological details to_ensure that_one_has minimized_the_probability of committing_an error is_central to ensuring that_the test in_question_is severe, and thus that the Severity Principle is satisfied. So, regardless of one's_doctrinal_commitment to_Bayesianism_or_frequentism, the employment of tools_like QATs to take into_account detailed_information about the methods used to generate the_available_evidence ought to_seem reasonable. One of the simplest QATs is the_Jadad scale, first developed in the_1990s to assess_clinical_studies_in pain research. Here_it is, in full: 1. Was_the study described as randomized? 2._Was the study described as double blind?_3. Was there a description of_withdrawals and dropouts? A 'yes'_to question_1 and question 2 is_given one point_each. A_'yes' to question_3, in addition to a description_of the number_of withdrawals and dropouts in each_of_the trial sub-groups,_and_an_explanation for_the withdrawals or_dropouts,_receives one_point._An additional point is given if_the_method of randomization is described in the_paper, and the method_is_deemed appropriate. A final_point is awarded if the_method of blinding is described, and_the method_is deemed_appropriate. Thus, a trial can receive between zero and five points_on the Jadad scale. 8 The_Jadad scale has been_praised by_some_as being easy_to_use-it takes_about ten minutes to complete for each_study-which is_an obvious virtue when a reviewer_must assess hundreds of_studies_for a particular hypothesis. On the_other hand, others complain that it_is too simple, and that_it_has_low inter-rater reliability (discussed in_§3). I describe the tool here_not to assess_it but merely to provide an example_of_a QAT for illustration. In contrast_to_the simplicity of the Jadad scale,_the_Chalmers_scale has 30 questions in_several categories, which include the trial_protocol, the statistical analysis, and the presentation of results._Similarly, the QAT_developed by Cho and Bero_(1994)_has_24 questions. At a coarse grain some of the features_on the_Chalmers QAT and_the Cho and Bero QAT are similar to the basic_elements of the Jadad QAT: these scales_both include questions about randomization, blinding, and subject withdrawal. (In §5_I briefly describe how Cho and Bero developed_their QAT, as an illustration of the_no-best-weight