NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Core Interventions in the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society; 2006. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 31.)

Cover of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Core Interventions in the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Show details

Appendix 7Systematic review quality checklist

Depression Guideline
Quality checklist for a systematic review (notes for reviewer are in italics)
Checklist completed by:Report reference ID:
SECTION 1: VALIDITY
Evaluation criteriaComments
1.1Does the review address an appropriate and clearly focused question?
Unless a clear and well-defined question is specified, it will be difficult to assess how well the study has met its objectives or how relevant it is to the question you are trying to answer on the basis of its conclusions.
1.2Does the review include a description of the methodology used?
A systematic review should include a detailed description of the methods used to identify and evaluate individual studies. If this description is not present, it is not possible to make a thorough evaluation of the quality of the review, and it should be rejected as a source of Level 1 evidence. (Though it may be useable as Level 4 evidence, if no better evidence can be found.) Unless a clear and well-defined question is specified, it will be difficult to assess how well the study has met its objectives or how relevant it is to the question you are trying to answer on the basis of its conclusions.
1.3Was the literature search sufficiently rigorous to identify all relevant studies?
Consider whether the review used an electronic search of at least one bibliographic database (searching for studies dating at least 10 years before publication of the review). Any indication that hand-searching of key journals, or follow-up of reference lists of included studies, were carried out in addition to electronic database searches can normally be taken as evidence of a well-conducted review.
1.4Was study quality assessed and taken into account?
A well-conducted systematic review should have used clear criteria to assess whether individual studies had been well conducted before deciding whether to include or exclude them. At a minimum, the authors should have checked that there was adequate concealment of allocation, that the rate of drop out was minimised, and that the results were analysed on an ‘intention to treat’ basis. If there is no indication of such an assessment, the review should be rejected as a source of Level 1 evidence. If details of the assessment are poor, or the methods considered to be inadequate, the quality of the review should be downgraded.
SECTION 2: OVERALL ASSESSMENTCommentsCode
2.1Low risk of biasAll or most criteria metA
Moderate risk of biasMost criteria partly metB
High risk of biasFew or no criteria metC
Copyright © 2006, The British Psychological Society & The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Enquiries in this regard should be directed to the British Psychological Society.

Bookshelf ID: NBK56473

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.2M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...