The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.

Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare Epidemiology and Public Health School of Medicine University of Nottingham Nottingham UK

Czech National Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation Faculty of Medicine Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark

Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands

JBI Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia

Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality A JBI Centre of Excellence Queen's University Kingston ON Canada

JBI Evid Synth. 2023 Jun 01;21(6):1344-1345. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00216. PubMed

JBI Evid Synth. 2023 Jun 01;21(6):1346-1347. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00213. PubMed

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009;339:b4012.

Furuya-Kanamori L, Xu C, Hasan S, Sa D. Quality versus risk of bias assessment in clinical research. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;129:172–5.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]. Adelaide, JBI; 2020 [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Munkholm K, Paludan-Müller AS, Boesen K. Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024886.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 [internet]. Cochrane; 2021 [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Rodgers JB, Ritskes-Hoitinga M Sánchez Morgado JM, Brønstad A. Systematic reviews. Experimental design and reproducibility in preclinical animal studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 213–61.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [internet]. University of York; 2008 [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf .

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71–2.

Guyatt G, Cairns J, Churchill D, Cook D, Haynes B, Hirsh J, et al. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268(17):2420–5.

Guyatt GH. Evidence-based medicine. ACP Journal Club; 1991.

Anon. How to read clinical journals: I. why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J 1981;124(5):555–8.

Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Seminars in perinatology. Elsevier. 1997;21(1):3–5.

Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Mishra S, Patel S, Naik E, Kumar A. Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS 2009;30(2):112–19.

Sur RL, Dahm P. History of evidence-based medicine. Indian J Urol 2011;27(4):487–9.

Tikkinen KAO, Guyatt GH. Understanding of research results, evidence summaries and their applicability-not critical appraisal-are core skills of medical curriculum. BMJ Evid Based Med 2021;26(5):231–3.

University of Oxford. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [internet]. University of Oxford; n.d. [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.cebm.net/ .

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [internet]. CASP; n.d. [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/ .

Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:22.

The GRADE Working Group. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation [internet]. GRADE; n.d. [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ .

Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med 2016;109(2):67–77.

Harrison JK, Reid J, Quinn TJ, Shenkin SD. Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians. Age Ageing 2017;46(3):359–65.

Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews AHRQ Publication No 12-EHC047-EF; 2012.

Moher D, Jadad A, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16(1):62–73.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008 [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.0.0/ .

Frampton G, Whaley P, Bennett M, Bilotta G, Dorne J-LCM, Eales J, et al. Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews. Environ Evid 2022;11(1):12.

Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:43.

Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Armstrong KA, Denison JA, Yeh PT, O’Reilly KR, et al. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst Rev 2019;8(1):3.

Babic A, Pijuk A, Brázdilová L, Georgieva Y, Raposo Pereira MA, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19(1):77.

Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;45(Pt A):123–9.