PUBH6005 Epidemiology Assessment Assessment 3: Part A: Critical Appraisal Individual/Group Individual Length Part A: 1500 words (+/- 10%) Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated...

Template for Assessment 3 Part A
Table 1 Cross-sectional study:
     (Insert the title of the paper you are appraising)
    Critical appraisal questions
    Underline your answer
    1.Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    2.Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    3.Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    4.Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    5.Were confounding factors identified?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    6.Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    7.Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    8.Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
Add additional pages if needed
Reference: (insert the reference here according to APA 7th edition)
Table 2 Case-control study:
    Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Human Infection with a New Zoonotic Paramyxovirus, Nipah Virus, during a 1998–1999 Outbreak of Severe Encephalitis in Malaysia
    Critical appraisal questions
    Underline your answer
    1.Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
    Yes
    Evidence: This research affirms that nearby contact with pigs, particularly wiped out pigs, was the essential wellspring of human Nipah disease during 1998–1999 in Malaysia. The activities that included direct contact with pigs were related with the most serious danger of disease; nonetheless, not all case patients revealed such openings, and it is conceivable that different creatures might be the wellspring of certain contaminations (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    2. Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question?
    Yes
    Evidence: Nipah infection is most firmly identified with the Hendra infection, which has been related with sickness episodes among ponies and people in Australia (Murray K, et al., 1995; Hooper PT, et al., 1996). Hendra infection seems to spread to people through direct contact with body liquids of contaminated ponies (McCormack JG, et al., 1999; Williamson MM, et al., 1998).
Hence case-control studies were the best method to characterize exposures associated with Nipah infection of humans during the outbreak in Malaysia (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    3. Were the cases recruited in an acceptable way?
    Yes
    Evidence: The appropriate screening procedures were followed while recruiting the case group of patients for the study.
Encephalitis patients whose serum specimen(s) tried positive for Nipah neutralizer were incorporated as case patients. Also, people chose as controls whose serum specimen(s) tried positive for Nipah counter acting agent were renamed as case patients (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    4. Were the controls selected in an acceptable way?
    Yes
    Evidence: Two sets of controls were selected: community-farm controls and case-farm controls. Community-farm controls were chosen to recognize qualities of homesteads where human Nipah disease was distinguished; these controls were people who either lived or chipped away at pig ranches with no detailed human encephalitis cases. Case-farm controls were chosen to distinguish explicit cultivating exercises related with Nipah contamination of people; these controls were people who either lived or chipped away at pig ranches with known instances of human Nipah disease (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    5. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias?
    Yes
    Evidence: To minimize the bias, the antibodies tests were performed considering the antigens of Hendra virus that also cross reacts with Nipah. Sera were tested for IgM and IgG antibodies by using an IgM–capture antibody EIA and an indirect EIA, respectively (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    6. Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally?
    Yes
    Evidence: The case patients were more when compared to the control group. This was because many of the control patients were different in ethnicity and occupation. Most of them had left the place before the study began.
Apart from this, the case and control groups were treated equally (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    7. Have the authors taken account of the potential confounding factors in the design and/or in their analysis?
    Yes
    Evidence: Contaminations were almost certain than controls to work with pigs on the ranch. Contamination was not related with direct contact with all pigs among people who chipped away at the homestead, yet it was altogether connected with direct contact with pigs that gave off an impression of being wiped out (Paton NI, et al., 1999). Contamination was not related with performing exercises that typically didn't include contact with pigs, like cleaning pigpens and washing pigs with a hose (Williamson MM, et al., 1998). Notwithstanding, contamination was related with taking care of pigs and with exercises including close contact with pigs, for example, preparing child pigs (cutting tails, labeling ears, and giving iron prescriptions), infusing or curing pigs, aiding pig reproducing (assortment of semen from pigs, manual semen injection of sows), aiding the introduction of piglets, and taking care of dead pigs. At the point when...