Critical Appraisal Tools

Integrative Reviews

• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists Appraisal checklists designed for use with Systematic Reviews, Randomized Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies, Qualitative studies and Clinical Prediction Rule.
• Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) The MMAT is a critical appraisal tool that is designed for the appraisal stage of systematic mixed studies reviews, i.e., reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. It permits to appraise the methodological quality of five categories to studies: qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies. (Hong et al., 2018).

Randomized Controlled Trials

• CASP checklist for RCT 
• CASP Checklists Critical Assessment Skills Programme (CASP) has appraisal checklists designed for use with Systematic Reviews, Randomized Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies, Qualitative studies and Clinical Prediction Rule.
• JBI Critical Appraisal Tools Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an independent, international, not-for-profit researching and development organization based at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. Contains a number of critical appraisal tools including Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials
• RoB 2.0  A revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. Is suitable for individually-randomized, parallel-group, and cluster- randomized trials

Qualitative Studies

• CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist Most frequently recommended tool for qualitative study assessment
• JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research

Systematic Reviews

• AMSTAR 2 - A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (Shea et al., 2017)
• BMJ Framework for Assessing Systematic Reviews
• CASP Systematic Review Checklist
• JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews
• ROBIS A new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). Here you can find the tool itself, information to help you complete a ROBIS assessment, and resources to help you present the results of your ROBIS assessment.

Scoping and Other Review Types

• CAT HPPR: A critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention (Heise et al., 2022).

References:

Buccheri, R. K., & Sharifi, C. (2017). Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence‐basedpPractice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(6), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12258

Burls, A. (2009). What is critical appraisal? Retrieved April 21, 2022, from www.whatisseries.co.uk

Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979), 52(6), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377

Downs and Black Checklist for Clinical Trial Quality Assessment.(2013). In Point-of-Care Testing of International Normalized Ratio for Patients on Oral Anticoagulant Therapy – Project Protocol [Internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361373/

Heise, T. L., Seidler, A., Girbig, M., Freiberg, A., Alayli, A., Fischer, M., Haß, W., & Zeeb, H. (2022). CAT HPPR: A critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), 334–334. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4

Hong, Q.N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F.K., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M., Griffiths, F.E., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285-291.DOI 10.3233/EFI-180221

Ma, Wang, Y., Yang, Z., Huang, D., Weng, H., & Zeng, X. (2020). Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Military Medical Research, 7(1), 7. 

Motheral, B., Brooks, J., Clark, M. A., Crown, W. H., Davey, P., Hutchins, D., Martin, B. C., & Stang, P. (2003). A checklist for retrospective database studies—Report of the ISPOR task force on retrospective databases. Value in Health, 6(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00242.x

Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

Tod, D., Booth, A., & Smith, B. (2021). Critical appraisal. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 52-72.