Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

HideElements
metastrue
breadcrumbtrue
favoritetrue
labelstrue
likestrue

The review report should report in a comprehensive manner, in narrative form and in tables, the results of risk of bias (methodological quality) assessments for each aspect of methodological quality (randomization; blinding; measurement; statistical analysis etc.) for each individual study and the overall risk of bias of the entire set of included studies. This section must provide an overarching statement of the quality of the included studies as a whole (i.e. low, moderate, high, etc.) and a narrative summary of the methodological quality of the included studies against each of the critical appraisal criteria, with a clear indication of the risks of bias present across the included studies (e.g. performance bias, detection bias etc.). Reporting can be supported (optional) by a table showing the results of the critical appraisal (see Table 3.1 for example). Where only few studies are identified, or there are specific items of interest from included studies, these should be addressed in the narrative also, particularly where studies were deficient, or particularly good.  Use of 'Unclear' and 'Not Applicable' should also be explained in the text.

Table 3.1. Critical appraisal results for included studies using the JBI-Critical Appraisal Checklist for randomised controlled trials

Study

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Author(s) ref

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

U

Y

N

Y

U

Author(s) ref

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

U

Y

N/A

Y

Y

Y - Yes, N - No, U - Unclear, N/A - not applicable

If appraisal tools are not appended to the review report (citation only), the appraisal questions should be added as a footnote/caption to the table (Table 3.1) so readers can clearly interpret the information presented.