Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/140296
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process. |
Author: | Barker, T.H. Stone, J.C. Sears, K. Klugar, M. Leonardi-Bee, J. Tufanaru, C. Aromataris, E. Munn, Z. |
Citation: | JBI Evidence Synthesis, 2022; 21(3):478-493 |
Publisher: | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) |
Issue Date: | 2022 |
ISSN: | 2689-8381 2689-8381 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer C. Stone, Kim Sears, Miloslav Klugar, Jo Leonardi-Bee, Catalin Tufanaru, Edoardo Aromataris, Zachary Munn |
Abstract: | JBI offers a suite of critical appraisal instruments that are freely available to systematic reviewers and researchers investigating the methodological limitations of primary research studies. The JBI instruments are designed to be study-specific and are presented as questions in a checklist. The JBI instruments have existed in a checklist-style format for approximately 20 years; however, as the field of research synthesis expands, many of the tools offered by JBI have become outdated. The JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative studies (eg, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies) must be updated to reflect the current methodologies in this field. Cognizant of this and the recent developments in risk-of-bias science, the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group was tasked with updating the current quantitative critical appraisal instruments. This paper details the methods and rationale that the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group followed when updating the JBI critical appraisal instruments for quantitative study designs. We detail the key changes made to the tools and highlight how these changes reflect current methodological developments in this field. |
Keywords: | critical appraisal instruments, methodological quality, risk of bias, systematic review methodology |
Rights: | © 2023 JBI |
DOI: | 10.11124/jbies-22-00125 |
Grant ID: | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1195676 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/jbies-22-00125 |
Appears in Collections: | Public Health publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.