Creation of an online inventory for choosing critical appraisal tools

Author:

Hong Quan Nha1,Bouix-Picasso Julien23,Ruchon Christian4

Affiliation:

1. School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

2. Faculty of Nursing Sciences, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

3. Laboratoire Éducations et Promotion en Santé, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Bobigny, France

4. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Abstract

Critical appraisal of evidence is performed to assess its validity, trustworthiness and usefulness in evidence-based practice. There currently exists a large number and variety of critical appraisal tools (also named risk of bias tools and quality assessment instruments), which makes it challenging to identify and choose an appropriate tool to use. We sought to develop an online inventory to inform librarians, practitioners, graduate students, and researchers about critical appraisal tools. This online inventory was developed from a literature review on critical appraisal tools and is kept up to date using a crowdsourcing collaborative web tool (eSRAP-DIY). To date, 40 tools have been added to the inventory (www.catevaluation.ca), and grouped according to five general categories: (a) quantitative studies, (b) qualitative studies, (c) mixed methods studies, (d) systematic reviews and (e) others. For each tool, a summary is provided with the following information: tool name, study designs, number of items, rating scale, validity, reliability, other information (such as existing websites or previous versions), and main references. Further studies are needed to test and improve the usability of the online inventory, and to find solutions to reduce to monitoring and update workload.

Publisher

IOS Press

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Education,Information Systems

Reference15 articles.

1. EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research;Altman;Open Medicine,2008

2. Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: A descriptive analysis;Armijo-Olivo;BMC Medical Research Methodology,2013

3. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed;Crowe;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2011

4. Deeks, J.J., Dinnes, J., D’Amico, R., Sowden, A.J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D.G. (2003). Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7(27), i-186.

5. Understanding collaboration in monitoring research publications: Protocol for a qualitative multiple case study;Granikov;Education for Information,2020

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3