Article type
Abstract
Background
Qualitative systematic reviews play a crucial role in delivering high-quality information regarding healthcare interventions, significantly influencing evidence-based practice. The critical appraisal of study methodological quality is pivotal in this process, as it provides an in-depth understanding of the included studies' quality and potential impact on the results, essential for informed decision-making. Despite the universal acknowledgment of the importance of critical appraisal, ongoing debate centres around whether studies should be excluded post-appraisal and the methodology for such exclusions in qualitative reviews, resulting in a lack of formal guidance in the field.
Objectives
This study aims to investigate the current practices concerning results of critical appraisal in JBI qualitative systematic reviews.
Methods
Qualitative systematic reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis between 2018 and 2022 were included. Extracted data included title, review question(s), review type, critical appraisal tool used, critical appraisal results, number of studies excluded based on appraisal results and criteria applied. A descriptive analysis was conducted, and textual descriptions were provided.
Results
Out of 127 systematic reviews in JBI Evidence Synthesis (2018-2022), 47 were qualitative, all following the JBI Checklist for Qualitative Research in critical appraisal. Twenty-seven reviews employed predefined criteria for exclusion. Of these, 18 reviews specified criteria such as congruity between research methodology and objectives, congruity between the methodology and the representation and analysis of data, representation of participants' voice, and ethical considerations. Five studies set cut-off scores (ranging from 3-7 yes out of 10 questions), two studies used a combination approach. Two reviews provided limited explanation. Among the remaining 20 reviews not excluding studies, 10 explicitly stated no exclusions regardless of results, while 10 had no reported criteria, revealing a transparency gap with limited justification.
Conclusions
The findings provide an overview of the current practice of addressing critical appraisal results in JBI systematic reviews, underscoring the need for fostering collaboration in establishing standardized guidelines to promote a unified approach to addressing appraisal results. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on refining methodologies in qualitative systematic reviews, producing more robust evidence in healthcare, with the resulting improvement holding the promise of enhancing long-term patient care outcomes.
Qualitative systematic reviews play a crucial role in delivering high-quality information regarding healthcare interventions, significantly influencing evidence-based practice. The critical appraisal of study methodological quality is pivotal in this process, as it provides an in-depth understanding of the included studies' quality and potential impact on the results, essential for informed decision-making. Despite the universal acknowledgment of the importance of critical appraisal, ongoing debate centres around whether studies should be excluded post-appraisal and the methodology for such exclusions in qualitative reviews, resulting in a lack of formal guidance in the field.
Objectives
This study aims to investigate the current practices concerning results of critical appraisal in JBI qualitative systematic reviews.
Methods
Qualitative systematic reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis between 2018 and 2022 were included. Extracted data included title, review question(s), review type, critical appraisal tool used, critical appraisal results, number of studies excluded based on appraisal results and criteria applied. A descriptive analysis was conducted, and textual descriptions were provided.
Results
Out of 127 systematic reviews in JBI Evidence Synthesis (2018-2022), 47 were qualitative, all following the JBI Checklist for Qualitative Research in critical appraisal. Twenty-seven reviews employed predefined criteria for exclusion. Of these, 18 reviews specified criteria such as congruity between research methodology and objectives, congruity between the methodology and the representation and analysis of data, representation of participants' voice, and ethical considerations. Five studies set cut-off scores (ranging from 3-7 yes out of 10 questions), two studies used a combination approach. Two reviews provided limited explanation. Among the remaining 20 reviews not excluding studies, 10 explicitly stated no exclusions regardless of results, while 10 had no reported criteria, revealing a transparency gap with limited justification.
Conclusions
The findings provide an overview of the current practice of addressing critical appraisal results in JBI systematic reviews, underscoring the need for fostering collaboration in establishing standardized guidelines to promote a unified approach to addressing appraisal results. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on refining methodologies in qualitative systematic reviews, producing more robust evidence in healthcare, with the resulting improvement holding the promise of enhancing long-term patient care outcomes.