How to critically appraise a systematic review: an aide for the reader and reviewer

Author:

Frewen John1,de Brito Marianne2,Pathak Anjali3,Barlow Richard45,Williams Hywel C6ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Dermatology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust , Exeter, Devon , UK

2. Department of Dermatology, The Royal London Hospital , London , UK

3. Watford General Hospital , Watford, Hertfordshire , UK

4. Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals , Birmingham , UK

5. Department of Dermatology, Birmingham City Hospital , Birmingham , UK

6. Department of Dermatology, Queens Medical Centre , Nottingham , UK

Abstract

Abstract The number of published systematic reviews has soared rapidly in recent years. Sadly, the quality of most systematic reviews in dermatology is substandard. With the continued increase in exposure to systematic reviews, and their potential to influence clinical practice, we sought to describe a sequence of useful tips for the busy clinician reader to determine study quality and clinical utility. Important factors to consider when assessing systematic reviews include: determining the motivation to performing the study, establishing if the study protocol was prepublished, assessing quality of reporting using the PRISMA checklist, assessing study quality using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal checklist, assessing for evidence of spin, and summarizing the main strengths and limitations of the study to determine if it could change clinical practice. Having a set of heuristics to consider when reading systematic reviews serves to save time, enabling assessment of quality in a structured way, and come to a prompt conclusion of the merits of a review article in order to inform the care of dermatology patients.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Dermatology

Reference21 articles.

1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement;Moher;Ann Intern Med,2009

2. New evidence pyramid;Murad;Evid Based Med,2016

3. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews;Page;BMJ,2021

4. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses;Ioannidis;Milbank Q,2016

5. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals;Croitoru;Br J Dermatol,2020

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