Definitions for critical appraisal evolve around a similar set of criteria:
Glossary definition (Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP)
Critical Appraisal Tools (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM))
While critical appraisal can highlight bias in a study, the current version of the Cochrane Handbook points out:
"Methodological quality refers to critical appraisal of a study or systematic review and the extent to which study authors conducted and reported their research to the highest possible standard. Bias refers to systematic deviation of results or inferences from the truth. These deviations can occur as a result of flaws in design, conduct, analysis, and/or reporting. It is not always possible to know whether an estimate is biased even if there is a flaw in the study; further, it is difficult to quantify and at times to predict the direction of bias. For these reasons, reviewers refer to ‘risk of bias’ (Chapter 8)." Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews (below the table).
A separate page has been created for Risk of Bias.
Critical appraisal and, more specifically, critical appraisal tools provide us with a mechanism to evaluate the research methodology of a study with a critical, objective, and systematic lens. This appraisal is essential when evaluating a study for a systematic review, for determining new guidelines for patient care, or for choosing appropriate interventions.
CA tools can be used in multiple ways and in different settings.
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
There were 2 goals in the development of AMSTAR:
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
Part of: The CEBM Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP Systematic Review Checklist
About: Heise, T.L., Seidler, A., Girbig, M. et al. CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention. BMC Med Res Methodol 22, 334 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4
Supplementary information:
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
This site has 6 assessment tools covering controlled interventions, SRs/MAs, observational cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, pre-post studies (no control group), and case series.
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP has 8 critical appraisal tools for SRs, RCTs, cohort studies, case control studies, economic evaluations, diagnostic studies, qualitative studies, and clinical prediction. Each item in the individual checklists provides a series of questions.
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
Part of: The CEBM Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
This site has an assessment tool for pre-post studies (no control group).
"Background: Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non‐randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta‐analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument."
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
Produced by: University of Newcastle, Australia and University of Ottawa, Canada
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP has a critical appraisal tool for diagnostic studies. Each item in the individual checklists provides a series of questions.
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
Part of: The CEBM Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Collins GS. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 14;11(10):e1001744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744. PMID: 25314315; PMCID: PMC4196729.
Found in: Riley RD, Moons KGM, Snell KIE, Ensor J, Hooft L, Altman DG, Hayden J, Collins GS, Debray TPA. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019 Jan 30;364:k4597. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4597. PMID: 30700442.
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP has 8 critical appraisal tools including one for clinical prediction. Each item in the individual checklists provides a series of questions.
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
Part of: The CEBM Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP has a critical appraisal tool for economic evaluations. Each item in the individual checklists provides a series of questions.
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
Part of: The CEBM Critical Appraisal Tools collection
Produced by: A. Long, U of Leeds
The ‘mixed method’ evaluation tool was developed from the evaluation tools for ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ studies,
themselves created within the context of a project exploring the feasibility of undertaking systematic reviews of research literature on effectiveness and outcomes in social care.
Produced by: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
This site has 6 assessment tools covering controlled interventions, SRs/MAs, observational cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, pre-post studies (no control group), and case series.
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
Part of: The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools collection
About: "While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research."
Produced by: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, UK
CASP has 8 critical appraisal tools for SRs, RCTs, cohort studies, case control studies, economic evaluations, diagnostic studies, qualitative studies, and clinical prediction. Each item in the individual checklists provides a series of questions.
About: Heise, T.L., Seidler, A., Girbig, M. et al. CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention. BMC Med Res Methodol 22, 334 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4
Supplementary information:
"While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research."
Produced by: Joanna Briggs Institute
The link above points to all of the Critical Appraisal Tools from JBI. All are in the format of a Word document.
See Chapter 3.2.7 of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis for an explanation on how to conduct and describe the critical appraisal of studies in a systematic review.
Produced by: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK
The appraisal worksheets are in English as well as Chinese, German, Lithuanian, Persian, and Spanish; languages can be found on the home page.
Items from the Downs & Black checklist can be found in this article.
Produced by: University of Newcastle, Australia and University of Ottawa, Canada
NOS was developed to assess the quality of nonrandomised 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. A 'star system' has been developed in which a study is judged on three broad perspectives: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups; and the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest for case-control or cohort studies respectively.
Produced by: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
This site has 6 assessment tools covering controlled interventions, SRs/MAs, observational cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, pre-post studies (no control group), and case series.
themselves created within the context of a project exploring the feasibility of undertaking systematic reviews of research literature on effectiveness and outcomes in social care.