• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Get control of your email attachments. Connect all your Gmail accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize your file attachments. You can also connect Dokkio to Drive, Dropbox, and Slack. Sign up for free.


Quality Appraisal

Page history last edited by Andrew Booth 5 years, 7 months ago

Quality appraisal/assessment of risk of bias

Name and/or description of the framework

Theoretical background

Example of use in a systematic review

The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists for critical appraisal of different study types:

Randomised controlled trials

Cohort studies

Economic evaluation studies

Diagnostic test studies

Qualitative studies

Systematic reviews

Available from http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8


The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation AGREE II instrument

Available from http://www.agreetrust.org/resource-centre/agree-ii/


The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale includes an appraisal tool and a tutorial.

Available from http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/



The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) for systematic reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies Criteria and tutorial available from

http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com. Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5tTRTc9yJ


MMAT wiki resource available from http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/page/24607821/FrontPage


Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Saravana Kumar VS,  Grimmer KA.  A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2004, 4:22 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-22


Voss PH and Rehfuess EA. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:98–104. doi:10.1136/jech-2011-200940


Vlayen J,  Aertgeert B, Hannes K, Sermeus W, Ramaekers D. A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. 

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005; Volume 17, Number 3: pp. 235–242


National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2011). Critically appraising practice guidelines: The AGREE II instrument. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 01 November, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/100.html.


Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F., Gagnon, M.P., & Rousseau, M.C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. Retrieved on [29 Sept 2014] from http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com. Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5tTRTc9yJ


Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay A, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. International journal of nursing studies 2012;49:47-53.



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.