SNPG917

Critical appraisal guidelines – secondary research

(systematic reviews +/- meta-analysis or meta-synthesis)

Criteria Yes No Unclear N/A

1. Was there a well-defined question for the review?    

2. Was the study question linked to inclusion &

   
exclusion criteria for the review?
3. Did the literature search cover enough sources to
   
ensure that all relevant studies were retrieved?
4. Were the included studies critically appraised using
   
appropriate quality criteria?
5. Were the included studies of sufficiently high quality
   
that bias is unlikely?

6. Were the studies appraised by two reviewers?    

7. Does the review include clear summary tables and

   
plots (if applicable) to show the results?

8. Is there a heterogeneity analysis?    

9. What do the results / findings mean?

The results mean that there is a need to ensure that the publication of systematic reviews and
meta‐analyses is realigned to eliminate bias and vested interests, and ensure they are integrated
better with the primary production of evidence.

a. Are the results real? (that is, could they have occurred due to chance?)
The results are real because the data that was used in the study included information
retrieved from PubMed surveys, as well as empirical evaluations of meta‐analyses.

b. What implications do these results / findings have for my practice?

The implications of the results for my practice include that I will seek to ensure that the
publication of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses is realigned to eliminate bias and vested
interests, and ensure they are integrated better with the primary production of evidence.
Further, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta‐analyses will have to be
eliminated because they are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.

Guidelines reproduced from Glasziou, Del Mar & Salisbury (2003, p. 131).
Adapted by Jenny Sim (2014).
 Reference

Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted

systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485-514.

Guidelines reproduced from Glasziou, Del Mar & Salisbury (2003, p. 131).
Adapted by Jenny Sim (2014).