Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal

Abstract

Systematic reviews can be a tremendous asset in the implementation of evidence-based practice, because they minimize some of the most-documented barriers to evidence-based practice. For example, by reading systematic reviews, clinicians may save time that would otherwise be dedicated to locating and appraising individual studies. Further, clinicians can rely on someone else's reviewing expertise, which reduces the knowledge and skill burden otherwise imposed on them. However, empirical studies have repeatedly demonstrated that there is great variability in the quality of systematic reviews. Thus, in order to harness their potential, it is imperative that clinicians distinguish high-quality systematic reviews from those of low quality. In this paper, we aim to discuss considerations for appraising the quality of systematic reviews.

Keywords:

• Evidence-based practice
• systematic reviews
• critical appraisal

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Chad Nye, University of Central Florida, for serving as the Acting Editor of this manuscript. In addition, we appreciate several valuable comments made by Chad Nye, Bob Bernard, Concordia University, as well as Laura Justice, Ohio State University. This feedback was invaluable in bringing the manuscript to its current form.

Notes

Note

The peer-review of this manuscript was handled by Chad Nye, PhD, who served as the Acting Editor (to avoid conflict of interest, as two of the authors of this paper are Editors of this Journal).