Research Guides: Review Types: Appraisal &amp; Evidence Grading

Tools for Appraisal

Critical Appraisal Resource Library
Evidence Grading

Avoiding Bias in Selecting Studies
A chapter from "Methods guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews." https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/cer-methods-guide/overview/
Cochrane Handbook -- Chapter 7: Considering Bias and Conflicts of Interest Among the Included Studies
Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Cochrane Handbook -- Chapter 8: Assessing Risk of Bias in a Randomized Trial
Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Resource Evaluation
The Netter Library's very own guide for evaluating information.
Evidence-based Practice: Appraise
From Duke University. Features helpful resources to assist with quality assessment. The worksheets include cover important aspects for quality assessment
How to Read a Paper
From The BMJ.
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool
Developed by researchers at McGill University, the MMAT has been designed for the appraisal stage of complex systematic literature reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies (mixed studies reviews).
Quality Assessment -- Introduction to Searching for Literature Guide
From Quinnipiac University's Netter Library.
Risk of Bias Tools
Features multiple tools for determining the risk of bias for systematic reviews.
Includes:
-RoB 2 Tool: a revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials
-ROBINS-I Tool: risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions
-ROB-ME: for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in a synthesis

Checklists

Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP Checklists
A set of eight critical appraisal tools designed to be used when reading research.
The Center for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) Checklists
Includes links to critical appraisal worksheets fora variety of different study designs.
Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools
The Joanna Briggs Institute has created a number of critical appraisal checklists, including those for case control studies, randomized controlled trials, and cross sectional studies.
AACODS Checklist
AACODS -- Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance.
Jess Tyndall, Medical Librarian and Head of the Gus Fraenkel Medical Library at Flinders University, developed the AACODS checklist as an evaluation and Critical Appraisal Tool specifically for use with grey literature sources
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
This scale was developed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies with its design, content and ease of use directed to the task of incorporating the quality assessments in the interpretation of meta-analytic results.
QUADAS-2
A quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, developed by a team at the School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol.
AGREE-II
AGREE is a tool for assessing the quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines. It is not to be used to appraise journal articles reporting the results of clinical trials but instead it is a quality assessment instrument for evaluating or deciding which guidelines could be recommended for use in practice or to inform health policy decisions.

Cochrane Handbook -- Chapter 14: Completing 'Summary of Findings' Tables and Grading the Certainty of Evidence
Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, Guyatt GH. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: 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 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
ConQual Approach
Rating the confidence of qualitative systematic review findings.
GRADE Approach
Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development & Evaluations) approach.
GRADE CERQual
GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research. For qualitative systematic reviews to assess the evidence or develop recommendations.
GRADE Working Group
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (short GRADE) Working Group has developed a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Many international organizations have provided input into the development of the approach and have started using it.
Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations
From the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine.
Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature.
Ebell, M. H., Siwek, J., Weiss, B. D., Woolf, S. H., Susman, J., Ewigman, B., & Bowman, M. (2004). Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. American family physician, 69(3), 548–556.

Review Types

Tools for Appraisal

Checklists

Resources »

Services »

About »