Dataset Information

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consumers of research (researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians) frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to allied health research.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken of 121 published critical appraisal tools sourced from 108 papers located on electronic databases and the Internet. The tools were classified according to the study design for which they were intended. Their items were then classified into one of 12 criteria based on their intent. Commonly occurring items were identified. The empirical basis for construction of the tool, the method by which overall quality of the study was established, the psychometric properties of the critical appraisal tools and whether guidelines were provided for their use were also recorded.

Results

Eighty-seven percent of critical appraisal tools were specific to a research design, with most tools having been developed for experimental studies. There was considerable variability in items contained in the critical appraisal tools. Twelve percent of available tools were developed using specified empirical research. Forty-nine percent of the critical appraisal tools summarized the quality appraisal into a numeric summary score. Few critical appraisal tools had documented evidence of validity of their items, or reliability of use. Guidelines regarding administration of the tools were provided in 43% of cases.

Conclusions

There was considerable variability in intent, components, construction and psychometric properties of published critical appraisal tools for research reports. There is no "gold standard' critical appraisal tool for any study design, nor is there any widely accepted generic tool that can be applied equally well across study types. No tool was specific to allied health research requirements. Thus interpretation of critical appraisal of research reports currently needs to be considered in light of the properties and intent of the critical appraisal tool chosen for the task.

SUBMITTER: Katrak P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC521688 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.

Katrak Persis P Bialocerkowski Andrea E AE Massy-Westropp Nicola N Kumar Saravana S Grimmer Karen A KA

BMC medical research methodology 20040916

<h4>Background</h4>Consumers of research (researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians) frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to ...[more]

PMID: 15369598

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies, i.e. meta-analyses (MA) and network-meta-analyses (NMA), to better understand their quality, validity and discuss the impact of the findings from these studies on current decision-making in PAH.MethodsA systematic literature review to identify MA/NMA studies considering approved and available therapies for treatment of PAH was conducted. Embase, Medline and the Cochrane's Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to April 22, 2020, supplemented by searches in health technology assessment websites. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist covering six domains (relevance, credibility, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation and conflict of interest) was selected for appraisal of the included MA/NMA studies.ResultsFifty-two full publications (36 MAs, 15 NMAs, and 1 MA/NMA) in PAH met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were of low quality, with none of the studies being scored as 'strong' across all checklist domains. Key limitations included the lack of a clearly defined, relevant decision problem, shortcomings in assessing and addressing between-study heterogeneity, and an incomplete or misleading interpretation of results.ConclusionsThis is the first critical appraisal of published MA/NMA studies in PAH, suggesting low quality and validity of published evidence synthesis studies in this therapeutic area. Besides the need for direct treatment comparisons assessed in long-term randomized controlled trials, future efforts in evidence synthesis in PAH should improve analysis quality and scrutiny in order to meaningfully address challenges arising from an evolving therapeutic landscape.

Project description:Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets