From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying
the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews

J 2023

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews

STONE, Jennifer C, Timothy Hugh BARKER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Merel RITSKES-HOITINGA, Kim SEARS et. al.

Základní údaje

Originální název

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews

Autoři

STONE, Jennifer C (garant), Timothy Hugh BARKER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Merel RITSKES-HOITINGA, Kim SEARS, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Česká republika, domácí), Jo LEONARDI-BEE a Zachary MUNN

Vydání

JBI Evidence Synthesis, PHILADELPHIA, LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2023, 2689-8381

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30230 Other clinical medicine subjects

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 2.700 v roce 2022

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14110/23:00130600

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00434

UT WoS

000945987900003

Klíčová slova anglicky

critical appraisal; methodology; quality; risk of bias; systematic review

Štítky

14119612, 14119613, rivok

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 17. 4. 2023 10:37, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Anotace

V originále

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term “risk of bias” assessment.

Návaznosti

LTC20031, projekt VaV

Název: Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic

Investor: Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR, Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic, INTER-COST

Citovat

STONE, Jennifer C, Timothy Hugh BARKER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Merel RITSKES-HOITINGA, Kim SEARS, Miloslav KLUGAR, Jo LEONARDI-BEE a Zachary MUNN. From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. PHILADELPHIA: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2023, roč. 21, č. 3, s. 472-477. ISSN 2689-8381. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00434.

@article{2275828,
   author = {Stone, Jennifer C and Barker, Timothy Hugh and Aromataris, Edoardo and RitskesandHoitinga, Merel and Sears, Kim and Klugar, Miloslav and LeonardiandBee, Jo and Munn, Zachary},
   article_location = {PHILADELPHIA},
   article_number = {3},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00434},
   keywords = {critical appraisal; methodology; quality; risk of bias; systematic review},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {2689-8381},
   journal = {JBI Evidence Synthesis},
   title = {From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews},
   url = {https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2023/03000/From_critical_appraisal_to_risk_of_bias.3.aspx},
   volume = {21},
   year = {2023}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 2275828
AU  - Stone, Jennifer C - Barker, Timothy Hugh - Aromataris, Edoardo - Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel - Sears, Kim - Klugar, Miloslav - Leonardi-Bee, Jo - Munn, Zachary
PY  - 2023
TI  - From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews
JF  - JBI Evidence Synthesis
VL  - 21
IS  - 3
SP  - 472-477
EP  - 472-477
PB  - LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
SN  - 26898381
KW  - critical appraisal
KW  - methodology
KW  - quality
KW  - risk of bias
KW  - systematic review
UR  - https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2023/03000/From_critical_appraisal_to_risk_of_bias.3.aspx
N2  - The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term “risk of bias” assessment.
ER  -

STONE, Jennifer C, Timothy Hugh BARKER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Merel RITSKES-HOITINGA, Kim SEARS, Miloslav KLUGAR, Jo LEONARDI-BEE a Zachary MUNN. From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews. \textit{JBI Evidence Synthesis}. PHILADELPHIA: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS \&{} WILKINS, 2023, roč.~21, č.~3, s.~472-477. ISSN~2689-8381. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00434.

Podrobný výpis o publikaci