Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@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 and 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, vol.~21, No~3, p.~472-477. ISSN~2689-8381. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00434.
|
