The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Slum upgrading strategies involving physical environment and infrastructure interventions and their effects on health and socio-economic outcomes (2013) · cites this paper as Jackson 2006
Cites
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769 · see citing works
Hulley, S. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.7.605 · Cited by 6,216 · see citing works
Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat.
Altman, D. G. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1309 · Cited by 938 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., Gluud, C., Martin, R. M., Wood, A. J. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad · Cited by 2,538 · see citing works
Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on
Djulbegovic, B., & Guyatt, G. H. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6 · Cited by 1,022 · see citing works
Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Coventry, P. A., Brown, J. E., Pervin, J., Brabyn, S., Pateman, R., Breedvelt, J., Gilbody, S., Stancliffe, R., McEachan, R., & White, P. L. (2021) · SSM - Population Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934 · Cited by 453 · see citing works
Coventry, P. A., Meader, N., Melton, H., Temple, M., Dale, H., Wright, K., Cloitre, M., Karatzias, T., Bisson, J., Roberts, N. P., et al. (2020) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003262 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Turley, R., Saith, R., Bhan, N., Rehfuess, E., & Carter, B. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010067.pub2 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Monteiro-Soares, M., Vale-Lima, J., Martiniano, J., Pinheiro-Torres, S., Dias, V., & Boyko, E. J. (2021) · Journal of Diabetes and its Complications · doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107837 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jackson, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Jackson, R.
- ORCID
- 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