Critical appraisal

References

• Amonette, W. E., English, K. L., & Kraemer, W. J. (2016). Evidence-based practice in exercise science: The six-step approach. Human Kinetics.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, M. B. (2005). Coming full circle: From practice to research. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport psychology in practice (pp. 287–298). Human Kinetics.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, A. (2007). Who will appraise the appraisers?—The paper, the instrument and the user. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24(1), 72–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00703.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, A., Carroll, C., Ilott, I., Low, L. L., & Cooper, K. (2013). Desperately seeking dissonance: Identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312466295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buccheri, R. K., & Sharifi, C. (2017). Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(6), 463–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, C., & Booth, A. (2015). Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Research Synthesis Methods, 6(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Lloyd-Jones, M. (2012). Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1425–1434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEBM. (2021). Study designs. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/study-designs
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, I., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. (2019). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011). A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52(6), 377–384. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., & Schram, S. (Eds.). (2012). Real social science: Applied phronesis. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastel, B., & Day, R. A. (2016). How to write and publish a scientific paper (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldacre, B. (2011). Forward. In I. Evans, H. Thornton, I. Chalmers, & P. Glasziou (Eds.), Testing treatments: Better research for better healthcare (pp. xi). Pinter & Martin.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, A., Venker, E., & Weng, C. (2017). Evidence appraisal: A scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(6), 1192–1203. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunnell, K., Poitras, V. J., & Tod, D. (2020). Questions and answers about conducting systematic reviews in sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 297–318. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1695141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & Debeer, H. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 383–394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2006). Systematic or unsystematic: Is that the question? Some reflections on the science, art, and politics of reviewing research evidence. In A. Killoran, C. Swann, & M. P. Kelly (Eds.), Public health evidence: Tracking health inequalities (pp. 239–250). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2017). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In J. P. T. Higgins, R. Churchill, J. Chandler, & M. S. Cumpston (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.2.0). https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P. T., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2020). Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1. Cochrane Collaboration. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485–514. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansen, M., & Thomsen, S. F. (2016). Guidelines for reporting medical research: A critical appraisal. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2016, Article 1346026. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1346026
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Katrak, P., Bialocerkowski, A. E., Massy-Westropp, N., Kumar, V. S., & Grimmer, K. A. (2004). A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4(1), 22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-22
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lasserson, T. J., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2021). Starting a review. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6.2). Cochrane. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Liabo, K., Gough, D., & Harden, A. (2017). Developing justifiable evidence claims. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 251–277). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83(8), 713–721. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/83.8.713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majid, U., & Vanstone, M. (2018). Appraising qualitative research for evidence syntheses: A compendium of quality appraisal tools. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2115–2131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/104973231878535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGettigan, M., Cardwell, C. R., Cantwell, M. M., & Tully, M. A. (2020). Physical activity interventions for disease-related physical and mental health during and following treatment in people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5, Article CD012864. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012864.pub2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Monforte, J., & Smith, B. (2021). Introducing postqualitative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1881805
   Google Scholar
• Morse, J. (2021). Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) review process does not use checklists. Qualitative Health Research, 31(5), 819–821. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321994114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. (2021). Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance: Reviewing the scientific evidence. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/reviewing-the-scientific-evidence#Quality-assessment
   Google Scholar
• Noetel, M., Ciarrochi, J., Van Zanden, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2019). Mindfulness and acceptance approaches to sporting performance enhancement: A systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 139–175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1387803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves–and how they can stop. Nature News, 526(7572), 182–185. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/526182a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, M. J., & Moher, D. (2016). Mass production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: An exercise in mega-silliness? The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 515–519. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R. (2006). Digging for nuggets: How ‘bad’research can yield ‘good’evidence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595314
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A., & Barnes, C. (2003). Types and quality of social care knowledge. Stage two: Towards the quality assessment of social care knowledge. ESRC UK Center for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Protogerou, C., & Hagger, M. S. (2020). A checklist to assess the quality of survey studies in psychology. Methods in Psychology, 3, 100031. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100031
   Google Scholar
• Pussegoda, K., Turner, L., Garritty, C., Mayhew, A., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., Boutron, I., Sarkis-Onofre, R., Bjerre, L. M., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2017). Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), Article 131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quigley, J. M., Thompson, J. C., Halfpenny, N. J., & Scott, D. A. (2019). Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett, D. L., Richardson, S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. WB Saunders Company.
   Google Scholar
• Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Santiago-Delefosse, M., Gavin, A., Bruchez, C., Roux, P., & Stephen, S. (2016). Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: Analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Social Science & Medicine, 148, 142–151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., & Kristjansson, E. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the problem of criteria: Implications for sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 12(4), 363–386. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.12.4.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparkes, A. C. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative journey. Human Kinetics.
   Google Scholar
• Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5), 491–497. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise, and health: From process to product. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sterne, J. A. C., Hernán, M. A., McAleenan, A., Reeves, B. C., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2020). Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1. Cochrane Collaboration. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Sterne, J. A., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., Emberson, J. R., Hernán, M. A., Hopewell, S., Hróbjartsson, A., Junqueira, D. R., Jüni, P., Kirkham, J. J., Lasserson, T., Li, T., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). Rob 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 366, Article 14898. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tod, D. (2019). Conducting systematic reviews in sport, exercise, and physical activity. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tod, D., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2020). Evidence-based practice. In D. Tod & M. Eubank (Eds.), Applied sport, exercise, and performance psychology: Current approaches to helping client (pp. 197–214). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walach, H., & Loef, M. (2015). Using a matrix-analytical approach to synthesizing evidence solved incompatibility problem in the hierarchy of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(11), 1251–1260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, O., & Miller, B. (2012). Quality appraisal of single-subject experimental designs: An overview and comparison of different appraisal tools. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 235–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225–234. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting, P., Wolff, R., Mallett, S., Simera, I., & Savović, J. (2017). A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams, V., Boylan, A.-M., & Nunan, D. (2020). Critical appraisal of qualitative research: Necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 25(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar