For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
10
views
Article has an altmetric score of 20
13
references
 Top references
cited by
150
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,938
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          JBI recently began the process of updating and revising its suite of critical appraisal tools to ensure that these tools remain compatible with recent developments within risk of bias science. Following a rigorous development process led by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, this paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. This paper also presents practical guidance on how the questions of this tool are to be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers, while providing topical examples. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J Page (2021)
          The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 2645 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 341
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            David Atkins, Dana Best, Peter A Briss … (2004)
            Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
            Article 0 comments Cited 1276 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 413
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              JBIʼs Systematic Reviews

              Kylie Porritt, Judith Gomersall, Craig Lockwood (2014)
              This article is the fourth in a series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to describe how to conduct a systematic review-one step at a time. This article focuses on the study selection and critical appraisal steps in the process. These steps ensure that the review produces valid results capable of providing a useful basis for informing policy, clinical practice, and future research.
              Article 0 comments Cited 123 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 5
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: JBI Evidence Synthesis
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Electronic): 2689-8381
                Publication date Created: 2023
                Publication date (Electronic): March 2023
                Publication date (Electronic): February 3 2023
                Volume: 21
                Issue: 3
                Pages: 494-506
                Article
                DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00430
                PubMed ID: 36727247
                SO-VID: b126db83-d462-4cf0-a961-6131ab7e3fc5
                Copyright © © 2023
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                403
                1
                293
                0
                Smart Citations
                403
                1
                293
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,938

                See all similar

                Cited by150

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors452

                See all reference authors