Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences pp 1027-1049 | Cite as
Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research
Critical appraisal skills are important for anyone wishing to make informed decisions or improve the quality of healthcare delivery. A good critical appraisal provides information regarding the believability and usefulness of a particular study. However, the appraisal process is often overlooked, and critically appraising quantitative research can be daunting for both researchers and clinicians. This chapter introduces the concept of critical appraisal and highlights its importance in evidence-based practice. Readers are then introduced to the most common quantitative study designs and key questions to ask when appraising each type of study. These studies include systematic reviews, experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials), and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies). This chapter also provides the tools most commonly used to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of quantitative studies. Overall, this chapter serves as a step-by-step guide to appraising quantitative research in healthcare settings.
KeywordsCritical appraisal Quantitative research Methodological quality Reporting quality
- Centre for Evidence-based Management. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 20 Dec 2017, from https://www.cebma.org/resources-and-tools/what-is-critical-appraisal/.
- Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Critical appraisal worksheets. 2017. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cebm.net/blog/2014/06/10/critical-appraisal/.
- Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Casp checklists. 2017. Retrieved 5 Dec 2017, from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.
- Dawes M, Davies P, Gray A, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R. Evidence-based practice: a primer for health care professionals. London: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
- Greenhalgh T, Donald A. Evidence-based health care workbook: understanding research for individual and group learning. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2000.Google Scholar
- Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Birger Hagen K. Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.Google Scholar
- Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. The cochrane collaboration. 2009. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-based practice across the health professions. Chatswood: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.Google Scholar
- Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 4 Dec 2017, from http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html.
- National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf.Google Scholar
- National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2017. Retrieved 17 Dec 2017, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.
- Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro scale. 2017. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017, from https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/.
- Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: F.A. Davis Company/Publishers; 2009.Google Scholar
- Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, … Kristjansson E. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.
- Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, … Boutron I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.Google Scholar
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, … Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.Google Scholar