A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.
A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-4-22
复制
发表时间：
2004-09-16
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Grimmer, Karen A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Katrak, Persis;Bialocerkowski, Andrea E;Grimmer, Karen A
背景：研究消费者(研究人员、管理人员、教育工作者和临床医生)经常使用标准的批判性评估工具来评估已发表的研究报告的质量。然而，对于联合卫生研究最合适的关键评估工具，还没有达成共识。我们总结了已出版的、目前可用的关键评价工具的内容、意图、结构和心理测量学特性，以确定共同因素及其与相关卫生研究的相关性。方法：对来自电子数据库和互联网上的108篇论文的121种已发表的关键评价工具进行系统综述。这些工具是根据它们的预期研究设计进行分类的。然后，根据他们的意图，他们的物品被归类为12个标准之一。确定了常见的物品。结果：87%的关键评价工具是针对某项研究设计的，大多数工具都是为实验研究而开发的。关键评价工具所载项目有相当大的差异。12%的可用工具是通过特定的实证研究开发的。49%的关键评估工具将质量评估总结为数字汇总分数。很少有关键的评估工具记录了其项目的有效性或使用的可靠性。43%的病例提供了工具的使用指南。结论：已发表的研究报告的关键评估工具在意图、组成、结构和心理测量学特性方面存在相当大的差异。任何研究设计都没有“黄金标准”的关键评估工具，也没有任何被广泛接受的通用工具可以同样好地应用于不同的研究类型。没有工具特定于相关的健康研究要求。因此，目前需要根据为任务选择的关键评估工具的属性和意图来考虑对研究报告的关键评估的解释。
BACKGROUND: Consumers of research (researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians) frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to allied health research.METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of 121 published critical appraisal tools sourced from 108 papers located on electronic databases and the Internet. The tools were classified according to the study design for which they were intended. Their items were then classified into one of 12 criteria based on their intent. Commonly occurring items were identified. The empirical basis for construction of the tool, the method by which overall quality of the study was established, the psychometric properties of the critical appraisal tools and whether guidelines were provided for their use were also recorded.RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of critical appraisal tools were specific to a research design, with most tools having been developed for experimental studies. There was considerable variability in items contained in the critical appraisal tools. Twelve percent of available tools were developed using specified empirical research. Forty-nine percent of the critical appraisal tools summarized the quality appraisal into a numeric summary score. Few critical appraisal tools had documented evidence of validity of their items, or reliability of use. Guidelines regarding administration of the tools were provided in 43% of cases.CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in intent, components, construction and psychometric properties of published critical appraisal tools for research reports. There is no "gold standard' critical appraisal tool for any study design, nor is there any widely accepted generic tool that can be applied equally well across study types. No tool was specific to allied health research requirements. Thus interpretation of critical appraisal of research reports currently needs to be considered in light of the properties and intent of the critical appraisal tool chosen for the task.