Cited by 207Health Sciences Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures

Jackson, R.·2006·Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Epidemiological evidence about the accuracy of diagnostic tests, the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of interventions is the cornerstone of evidence-based health care.1 Practitioners of evidence-based health care require critical appraisal skills to judge the validity of this evidence. The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Working Group members are international leaders in teaching critical appraisal skills, and their users’ guides for appraising the validity of the healthcare literature2 have long been the basis of teaching programmes worldwide. However, we found that many of our students took a reductionist “paint by numbers” approach when using the Working Group’s guides. Students could answer individual appraisal questions correctly but would have difficulty assessing overall study quality. We believe this is due to a poor understanding of epidemiological study design. So over the past 15 years of teaching critical appraisal we have modified the EBM Working Group approach and developed the Graphic Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies (GATE) frame to help our students conceptualise the whole study as well as its component parts. GATE is a visual framework that illustrates the generic design of all epidemiological studies (figure 1). We now teach critical appraisal by “hanging” studies and the EBM Working Group’s appraisal questions on the GATE frame.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/ebm.11.2.35

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two independent review authors assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate using checklists based on the 'Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies' and adapted by NICE for public health interventions.

    “Two independent review authors assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate using checklists based on the ‘Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies' (GATE) (Jackson 2006) and adapted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for public health interventions (NICE 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, R.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Jackson, R.
Venue
Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-04-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
35-38
ISSN
1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024080019
Cited by
207
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
critical appraisal, epidemiological study design, study quality assessment, medical education, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic factors
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, Estrogens, Conjugated (USP), Female, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Medroxyprogesterone Acetate, Evidence-Based Medicine, Progesterone Congeners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review