Abstract
An advantage of a systematic review over its black box counterpart is the emphasis given to critical appraisal, or the assessment of a primary study’s rigour, suitability, and relevance. Critical appraisal helps readers evaluate how confident they can be that the primary research provides a solid base for the review findings. Although critical appraisal includes examining the details of the primary research, it also involves considering the body of evidence as a whole. In the current chapter, I define critical appraisal, describe the reasons for undertaking the task, and how it might be completed for both quantitative and qualitative research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amonette, W. E., English, K. L., & Kraemer, W. J. (2016). Evidence-based practice in exercise science: The six-step approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Armijo-Olivo, S., Stiles, C. R., Hagen, N. A., Biondo, P. D., & Cummings, G. G. (2012). Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: A comparison of the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool—Methodological research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.X.
Boland, A., Cherry, G. M., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burke, S. (2016). Rethinking ‘validity’ and ‘trustworthiness’ in qualitative inquiry: How might we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport and exercise sciences? In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 330–339). London, UK: Routledge.
Burls, A. (2009). What is critical appraisal? (2nd ed.). Newmarket, UK: Haywood Medical Communications.
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Carroll, C., & Booth, A. (2015). Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Research Synthesis Methods, 6, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1128.
Chalmers, I., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Systematic reviews. London, UK: BMJ Publishing.
Crowe, M., Sheppard, L., & Campbell, A. (2011). Comparison of the effects of using the Crowe critical appraisal tool versus informal appraisal in assessing health research: A randomised trial. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 9, 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00237.x.
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, 52, 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377.
Goldstein, A., Venker, E., & Weng, C. (2017). Evidence appraisal: A scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24, 1192–1203. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx050.
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Davies, T. B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J. W., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48, 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x.
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2017). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In J. P. T. Higgins, R. Churchill, J. Chandler, & M. S. Cumpston (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.2.0). Retrieved from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin.
Katikireddi, S. V., Egan, M., & Petticrew, M. (2015). How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204711.
Katrak, P., Bialocerkowski, A. E., Massy-Westropp, N., Kumar, V. S. S., & Grimmer, K. A. (2004). A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-22.
King, S. (2000). On writing: A memoir of the craft. New York, NY: Scribner.
Liabo, K., Gough, D., & Harden, A. (2017). Developing justifiable evidence claims. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 251–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacAuley, D., McCrum, E., & Brown, C. (1998). Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice. British Medical Journal, 316, 1134–1137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1134.
Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves—And how they can stop. Nature News, 526(7572), 182–185.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A., & Barnes, C. (2003). Types and quality of knowledge in social care. London, UK: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sackett, D. L., Richardson, S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company.
Salmond, S., & Porter, S. (2017). Critical appraisal. In C. Holly, S. Salmond, & M. Saimbert (Eds.), Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing (2nd ed., pp. 173–189). New York, NY: Springer.
Sanderson, S., Tatt, I. D., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2007). Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 666–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018.
Southward, K., Rutherfurd-Markwick, K. J., & Ali, A. (2018). The effect of acute caffeine ingestion on endurance performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48, 1913–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0939-8.
Winter, S., & Collins, D. J. (2016). Applied sport psychology: A profession? The Sport Psychologist, 30, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0132.
Woolf, S. H. (2000). Taking critical appraisal to extremes: The need for balance in the evaluation of evidence. The Journal of Family Practice, 49, 1081–1085.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tod, D. (2019). Critical Appraisal. In: Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12263-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12263-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12262-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12263-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)