Appraisal Checklist Systematic Review
xlsx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
810
Subject
Medicine
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
xlsx
Pages
4
Uploaded by GrandSummer2875
Part I
APA style citation of the critiqued article (type in box below)
1
Part II
Abstract
2
Submit 150-200-word abstract in a separate Word document. See instructions for the format re
Part III
Quality Criteria (If you check CD, NA, NR you need to identify which it is by indicating CD, NA, 3
Did the review explicitly address a sensible clinical question?
Y
N 4
Y
N 5
Was the quality of the included studies assessed?
Y
N 6
Y
N 7
Y
N 8
Y
N 9
Was publication bias assessed?
Y
N 10
Y
N 11
*CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported
**Quality Rating: Good (++), Fair (+), or Poor (-)
References
Was the search for relevant studies detailed, exhaustive, and conducted using a systematic approach?
Was the quality of each included study rated independently by two or more reviewers using a standard method to appraise its internal validity?
Were eligibility criteria for included and excluded studies predefined and specified?
Were the included studies listed along with important characteristics and results of each study?
Was heterogeneity assessed? (This question applies only to meta-
analyses.) - normally inidcated by Cochran’s Q or I
2
Statisitics
**How well was the study done to minimise the risk of bias or confounding? (check only one)
High quality (++)___
Unaccepta
Good - high quality (++): The majority of criteria met. There is minimal or no risk of bias. The res
outcomes are unlikely to be changed by further research. Fair - Acceptable quality (+): Most of the criteria were met. There are some flaws in the study w
of bias. The study results or outcomes may change in the light of further studies. Poor - Unacceptable (-): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects Conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies.
1. Guyatt, Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users’ guides to the medical literature. Ess
based clinical practice (3rd edition.). McGraw-Hill Medical. 2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2013). Study Quality Assessment Tools. National In
Available from URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of Evidence (March 2009). University of O
URL: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-bas
evidence-march-2009
4. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A guideline developer’s handbook. Edinb
(SIGN publication no. 50). [November 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-gu
guideline-developers-handbook/
equirements. or NR) CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
_ Acceptable (+) ___ able (–)___
sults or study with an associated risk of study design.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
sentials of evidence-
nstitutes of Health. Oxford. Available from sed-medicine-levels-of-
burgh: SIGN; 2019. uidelines/sign-50-a-