CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE

TOPICS
SCREEN FOR INITIAL VALIDITY AND
RELEVANCE

The article is from a Journal Review

The author collects PubMed searches for pneumoscrotum,
etiology, diagnosis, and treatment.
The study was not sponsored by any organization that
might influence the the content
SCREEN FOR INITIAL VALIDITY AND
RELEVANCE

The results review the historical perspective, classification, etiology,

diagnosis, and treatment options of pneumoscrotum, as well as the
presentation of pneumoscrotum in neonates/ infants
This information, if valid and proven, will enhance our knowledge and
diagnostic references especially in Urology diseases, and medical in
general.
DETERMINE THE INTENT
OF THE ARTICLE
To provide historical perspective,
classification, etiology, diagnosis, and
treatment options of pneumoscrotum, as well
as the presentation of pneumoscrotum in
neonates/ infants.
LEVEL 1 OF EVIDENCE
Lev Therapy/Preventio Prognosis Diagnosis
e n,
l Aetiology/Harm
1a SR (with SR (with SR (with
homogeneity*) of homogeneity*) homogeneity*) of
RCTs of inception Level 1 diagnostic
cohort studies; studies; CDR with
CDR validated 1b studies from
in different different clinical
populations centres
1b Individual RCT (with Individual Validating** cohort
narrow inception study with good
Confidence Interv cohort study reference
al with > 80% standards; or CDR
) follow-up; CDR tested within one
validated in a clinical centre
single
population
1c All or none All or none case- Absolute SpPins and SnN
LEVEL 2 EVIDENCE
Leve Therapy/Prevention, Prognosis Diagnosis
l Aetiology/Harm

2a SR (with homogeneity* ) SR (with homogeneity* SR (with homogeneity*) of

of cohort studies ) of either Level >2 diagnostic studies
retrospective cohort
studies or untreated
control groups in RCTs

2b Individual cohort study Retrospective cohort Exploratory** cohort study

(including low quality study or follow-up of with goodreference
RCT; e.g., <80% follow- untreated control standards; CDR after
up) patients in an RCT; derivation, or validated
Derivation of CDR or only on split-sample or
validated on split- databases
sample only

2c Outcomes" Research;" Outcomes" Research"

Ecological studies
 Level 3,4,5 of Evidence
Leve Therapy/Prevention,
l Aetiology/Harm
3a SR (with homogeneity*)
of case-control studies
3b Individual Case-Control
Study
Prognosis Diagnosis
SR (with homogeneity*) of
3b and better studies
Non-consecutive study; or
without consistently
applied reference
standards

4 Case-series (and Case-series (and Case-control study, poor or

poor quality cohort and c poor quality prognostic non-independent reference
ase-control studies cohort studies*** standard
) )
5 Expert opinion without Expert opinion without Expert opinion without
explicit critical appraisal, explicit critical explicit critical appraisal, or
or based on physiology, appraisal, or based on based on physiology,
bench research or "first physiology, bench bench research or "first
"principles research or "first "principles
"principles
GRADES OF
RECOMMENDATION
A consistent level 1 studies

B consistent level 2 or 3 studies or

extrapolations from level 1 studies
C level 4 studies or extrapolations from
level 2 or 3 studies
D level 5 evidence or troublingly
inconsistent or inconclusive studies of
any level
THANK YOU