Guidlines for Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews:
Did the report clearly state the research problem and/or research questins? Is the scope of the project appropriate?
Is the topic of review important for nursing?
Were the concepts, variables, or phenomena adequately defined?
Did the report clearly describe criteria for selecting primary studies, and are those criteria reasonable?
Were the databases used by the reviewers identified, and are they appropriate and comprehensive? Were search terms identified, and are they exhausive?
Did the reviewers use adequate supplementary efforts to identify relevant studies?
Was a PRISMA-type flow chart included to summarize the search results?
Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly articulated, and were they defensible?
Did the search strategy yield a strong and comprehensive sample of studies? Were strengths and limitations of the sampe identified?
If an original report was lacking key information, did reviewers attempt to contact the original researchers for additional information – or did the study have to be excluded?
If studies were excluded for reasons other than insufficient information, did the reviewers provide a rationale for the decision?
Did the reviewers appraise the quality of the primary studies? Did they use a defensible and well-defined seto of criteria or a respected quality appraisal scale?
Did two or ore people do the appraisals and was interrater agreement reported?
Was the appraisal information used in a well-defined and defensible manner in the selection of studies or in the analysis of results?
Was adequate information extracted about methodologic and administrative aspects of the study sample characteristics, and study findings?
Were steps taken to enhance the integrity of the dataset (e.g., were two or more people used to extract and record informatio for analysis?
Data Analysis- Quantitative:
* If meta-anaysis was not performed, was there adequate justification for using a narrative integration method? If a meta-analysis
was performed, was this justifiable?
* For meta-analyses, were appropriate procedures followed for computing effect size estimates for relevant outcomes?
* Was heterogeneity of effects adequately dealth with? Was the decision to use a random effects model or a fixed effects model
* Were appropriate subgroup analyses undertaken— or was the absence of subgroup analyses justified?
* Was the issue of publication bias adequately addressed?
* Did the reviewers draw reasonable conclusions about the quality, quantity, and consistency of evidence relating to the research
* Were limitations of the review/synthesis noted?
* Were implications for nursing practice and further research clearly stated?
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: