were defined, measured, analysed and reported. An assessment was conducted for each individual study with regard to the quality and risk of bias criteria utilising a modified version of the Chalmers Checklist for appraising the quality of studies of interventions (see Appendix 3). Three independent raters rated each study according to these criteria, and together a consensus agreement was reached as to an overall rating of or ‘Good’, ‘Fair’, ‘Poor’. Quantity of evidence reflected the number of studies that were included as the evidence base for each ranking. The quantity assessment also took into account the number of participants in relation to the frequency of the outcomes measured (i.e. the statistical power of the studies). Small underpowered studies that were otherwise sound may have been included in the evidence base if their findings were generally similar- but at least some of the studies cited as evidence must have been large enough to detect the size and direction of any effect. Level of evidence reflected the study design. Details of the study designs included in this REA were assessed against a hierarchy of evidence commonly used in Australia: Level I: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) Level II: A RCT Level III-1: A pseudo-RCT (i.e. a where a pseudo-random method of allocation is utilised, such as alternate allocation). Level III-2: A comparative study with concurrent controls. This can be any one of the following: Non-randomised experimental [this includes controlled after (pre-test/post-test) studies, as well as adjusted indirect comparisons (i.e. utilise A vs B and B vs C to determine A vs C with statistical adjustment for B)] Cohort study
were defined, measured, analysed and reported. An assessment was conducted for each individual study with regard to the quality and risk of bias criteria utilising a modified version of the Chalmers Checklist for appraising the quality of studies of interventions (see Appendix 3). Three independent raters rated each study according to these criteria, and together a consensus agreement was reached as to an overall rating of ‘Good’, ‘Fair’, or ‘Poor’. Quantity of evidence reflected the number of studies that were included as the evidence base for each ranking. The quantity assessment also took into account the number of participants in relation to the frequency of the outcomes measured (i.e. the statistical power of the studies). Small underpowered studies that were otherwise sound may have been included in the evidence base if their findings were generally similar- but at least some of the studies cited as evidence must have been large enough to detect the size and direction of any effect. Level of evidence reflected the study design. Details of the study designs included in this REA were assessed against a hierarchy of evidence commonly used in Australia: Level I: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) Level II: A RCT Level III-1: A pseudo-RCT (i.e. a where a pseudo-random method of allocation is utilised, such as alternate allocation). Level III-2: A comparative study with concurrent controls. This can be any one of the following: Non-randomised experimental [this includes controlled (pre-test/post-test) studies, as well as adjusted indirect comparisons (i.e. utilise A vs B and B vs C to determine A vs C with statistical adjustment for B)] Cohort study after
Question%209%20-%20Moral%20Injury%20-%20Technical%20Report%20November%202016_0.docx