Scribd
Upload
36 views2 pages

Methodology Checklist 1: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

This document provides a methodology checklist for systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing studies. It acknowledges borrowing items from the AMSTAR tool for assessing methodological quality. The checklist examines whether the review has a clearly defined question, comprehensive search, selection and data extraction by multiple reviewers, unbiased inclusion criteria, lists excluded studies, reports study characteristics, assesses study quality, appropriately uses quality in analysis, assesses publication bias, and declares conflicts.

Uploaded by

S Fzns
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views2 pages

Methodology Checklist 1: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

This document provides a methodology checklist for systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing studies. It acknowledges borrowing items from the AMSTAR tool for assessing methodological quality. The checklist examines whether the review has a clearly defined question, comprehensive search, selection and data extraction by multiple reviewers, unbiased inclusion criteria, lists excluded studies, reports study characteristics, assesses study quality, appropriately uses quality in analysis, assesses publication bias, and declares conflicts.

Uploaded by

S Fzns
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Methodology Checklist 1: Systematic Reviews and Meta-

SIGN analyses
SIGN gratefully acknowledges the permission received from the authors of the AMSTAR tool to base
this checklist on their work: Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C,. et
al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of
systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007, 7:10 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
Available from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/10 [cited 10 Sep 2012]

Study identification (Include author, title, year of publication, journal title, pages)

Guideline topic: Key Question No:

Before completing this checklist, consider:


Is the paper relevant to key question? Analyse using PICO (Patient or Population
Intervention Comparison Outcome). IF NO reject. IF YES complete the checklist.

Checklist completed by:

Section 1: Internal validity


In a well conducted systematic review: Does this study do it?

1.1 The research question is clearly defined and the


inclusion/ exclusion criteria must be listed in the Yes □ No □
paper. If no reject

1.2 A comprehensive literature search is carried out. Yes □ No □


Not applicable
□
If no reject

1.3 At least two people should have selected Yes □ No □


studies.
Can’t say □

1.4 At least two people should have extracted data. Yes □ No □

Can’t say □

1.5 The status of publication was not used as an Yes □ No □


inclusion criterion.

1.6 The excluded studies are listed. Yes □ No □

1.7 The relevant characteristics of the included Yes □ No □


studies are provided.
1.8 The scientific quality of the included studies was Yes □ No □
assessed and reported.

1.9 Was the scientific quality of the included studies Yes □ No □


used appropriately?

1.10 Appropriate methods are used to combine the Yes □ No □


individual study findings.
Can’t say □ Not applicable
□
1.11 The likelihood of publication bias was assessed
appropriately. Yes □ No □
Not applicable
□

1.12 Conflicts of interest are declared. Yes □ No □

SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDY

2.1 What is your overall assessment of the High quality (++) □


methodological quality of this review?
Acceptable (+) □
Low quality (-)□
Unacceptable – reject 0 □
2.2 Are the results of this study directly applicable to Yes □ No □
the patient group targeted by this guideline?
2.3 Notes:

You might also like