Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process
Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer Stone, Kim Sears, Miloslav Klugar, Jo Leonardi‐Bee, Cătălin Tufănaru, Edoardo Aromataris, Zachary Munn
The University of Adelaide Queen's University Masaryk University Czech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre
内容与影响
JBI offers a suite of critical appraisal instruments that are freely available to systematic reviewers and researchers investigating the methodological limitations of primary research studies. The JBI instruments are designed to be study-specific and are presented as questions in a checklist. The JBI instruments have existed in a checklist-style format for approximately 20 years; however, as the field of research synthesis expands, many of the tools offered by JBI have become outdated. The JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative studies (eg, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies) must be updated to reflect the current methodologies in this field. Cognizant of this and the recent developments in risk-of-bias science, the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group was tasked with updating the current quantitative critical appraisal instruments. This paper details the methods and rationale that the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group followed when updating the JBI critical appraisal instruments for quantitative study designs. We detail the key changes made to the tools and highlight how these changes reflect current methodological developments in this field.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
回答优先基于摘要、文献信息与可获取全文;依据不足时会明确说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
计算机 / AIMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
参考文献 38
此处列出前 3 条
施引文献 423
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条