sample of critical appraisal of quantitative research paper

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Learning Hub Group

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

• Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper
• Critical Appraisal: Help
• Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Useful resources

Appraisal of a Quantitative paper: Top tips

• Introduction

Critical appraisal of a quantitative paper (RCT)

This guide, aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising quantitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. One framework for appraising quantitative research (based on reliability, internal and external validity) is provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article.

Please note this framework is for appraising one particular type of quantitative research a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) which is defined as 

a trial in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups: the experimental group or groups receive the intervention or interventions being tested; the comparison group (control group) receive usual care or no treatment or a placebo.  The groups are then followed up to see if there are any differences between the results.  This helps in assessing the effectiveness of the intervention.(CASP, 2020)

Support materials

• Framework for reading quantitative papers (RCTs)
• Critical appraisal of a quantitative paper PowerPoint

To practise following this framework for critically appraising a quantitative article, please look at the following article:

Marrero, D.G.  et al  (2016) 'Comparison of commercial and self-initiated weight loss programs in people with prediabetes: a randomized control trial',  AJPH Research , 106(5), pp. 949-956.

Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper (RCT): practical example

• Internal Validity
• External Validity
• Reliability Measurement Tool

How to use this practical example 

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a quantitative paper - we are going to look at the following article:

Marrero, d.g.  et al  (2016) 'comparison of commercial and self-initiated weight loss programs in people with prediabetes: a randomized control trial',  ajph research , 106(5), pp. 949-956.,            step 1.  take a quick look at the article, step 2.  click on the internal validity tab above - there are questions to help you appraise the article, read the questions and look for the answers in the article. , step 3.   click on each question and our answers will appear., step 4.    repeat with the other aspects of external validity and reliability. , questioning the internal validity:, randomisation : how were participants allocated to each group did a randomisation process taken place, comparability of groups: how similar were the groups eg age, sex, ethnicity – is this made clear, blinding (none, single, double or triple): who was not aware of which group a patient was in (eg nobody, only patient, patient and clinician, patient, clinician and researcher) was it feasible for more blinding to have taken place , equal treatment of groups: were both groups treated in the same way , attrition : what percentage of participants dropped out did this adversely affect one group has this been evaluated, overall internal validity: does the research measure what it is supposed to be measuring, questioning the external validity:, attrition: was everyone accounted for at the end of the study was any attempt made to contact drop-outs, sampling approach: how was the sample selected was it based on probability or non-probability what was the approach (eg simple random, convenience) was this an appropriate approach, sample size (power calculation): how many participants was a sample size calculation performed did the study pass, exclusion/ inclusion criteria: were the criteria set out clearly were they based on recognised diagnostic criteria, what is the overall external validity can the results be applied to the wider population, questioning the reliability (measurement tool) internal validity:, internal consistency reliability (cronbach’s alpha). has a cronbach’s alpha score of 0.7 or above been included, test re-test reliability correlation. was the test repeated more than once were the same results received has a correlation coefficient been reported is it above 0.7 , validity of measurement tool. is it an established tool if not what has been done to check if it is reliable pilot study expert panel literature review criterion validity (test against other tools): has a criterion validity comparison been carried out was the score above 0.7, what is the overall reliability how consistent are the measurements , overall validity and reliability:, overall how valid and reliable is the paper.

• << Previous: Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Next: Useful resources >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 10:15 AM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/critical_appraisal

Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research

• Living reference work entry
• Latest version View entry history
• First Online: 12 June 2018
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Rocco Cavaleri 2 ,
• Sameer Bhole 3 , 5 &
• Amit Arora 2 , 4 , 5  

1281 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Critical appraisal skills are important for anyone wishing to make informed decisions or improve the quality of healthcare delivery. A good critical appraisal provides information regarding the believability and usefulness of a particular study. However, the appraisal process is often overlooked, and critically appraising quantitative research can be daunting for both researchers and clinicians. This chapter introduces the concept of critical appraisal and highlights its importance in evidence-based practice. Readers are then introduced to the most common quantitative study designs and key questions to ask when appraising each type of study. These studies include systematic reviews, experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials), and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies). This chapter also provides the tools most commonly used to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of quantitative studies. Overall, this chapter serves as a step-by-step guide to appraising quantitative research in healthcare settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Appraisal of Qualitative Studies

Literature Evaluation and Critique

Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318(7192):1209.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arora A, Scott JA, Bhole S, Do L, Schwarz E, Blinkhorn AS. Early childhood feeding practices and dental caries in preschool children: a multi-centre birth cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):28.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, … Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1–12.

Google Scholar  

Cavaleri R, Schabrun S, Te M, Chipchase L. Hand therapy versus corticosteroid injections in the treatment of de quervain’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2015.10.004 .

Centre for Evidence-based Management. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 20 Dec 2017, from https://www.cebma.org/resources-and-tools/what-is-critical-appraisal/ .

Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Critical appraisal worksheets. 2017. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cebm.net/blog/2014/06/10/critical-appraisal/ .

Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00026-4 .

Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Casp checklists. 2017. Retrieved 5 Dec 2017, from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists .

Dawes M, Davies P, Gray A, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R. Evidence-based practice: a primer for health care professionals. London: Elsevier; 2005.

Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Research methods: reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969.

Greenhalgh T, Donald A. Evidence-based health care workbook: understanding research for individual and group learning. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2000.

Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, Guyatt G, Bass E, Brill-Edwards P, … Gerstein H. Users’ guides to the medical literature: II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598–601.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, … Jaeschke R. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4), 383–94.

Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Birger Hagen K. Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.

Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Is restricted randomisation necessary? BMJ. 2006;332(7556):1506–8.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. The cochrane collaboration. 2009. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org .

Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-based practice across the health professions. Chatswood: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.

Hoffmann T, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, … Johnston M. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 2014;348: g1687.

Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 4 Dec 2017, from http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html .

Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Mishra S, Patel S, Naik E, Kumar A. Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis. 2009;30(2):112–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7184.62770 .

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf .

National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2017. Retrieved 17 Dec 2017, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools .

Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro scale. 2017. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017, from https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/ .

Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: F.A. Davis Company/Publishers; 2009.

Roberts C, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7203):185.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, … Kristjansson E. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 .

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, … Boutron I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, … Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, … Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

Rocco Cavaleri & Amit Arora

Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia

Sameer Bhole

Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia

Oral Health Services, Sydney Local Health District and Sydney Dental Hospital, NSW Health, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia

Sameer Bhole & Amit Arora

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rocco Cavaleri .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Science & Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Cavaleri, R., Bhole, S., Arora, A. (2018). Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

Received : 20 January 2018

Accepted : 12 February 2018

Published : 12 June 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-2779-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-2779-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research

2019, Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

Critical appraisal skills are important for anyone wishing to make informed decisions or improve the quality of healthcare delivery. A good critical appraisal provides information regarding the believability and usefulness of a particular study. However, the appraisal process is often overlooked, and critically appraising quantitative research can be daunting for both researchers and clinicians. This chapter introduces the concept of critical appraisal and highlights its importance in evidence-based practice. Readers are then introduced to the most common quantitative study designs and key questions to ask when appraising each type of study. These studies include systematic reviews, experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials), and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies). This chapter also provides the tools most commonly used to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of quantitative studies. Overall, this chapter serves as a step-by-step guide to appraising quantitative research in healthcare settings

Related Papers

International Journal of Health Policy and Management IJHPM

Background Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data. Methods A working group was created to assess current critical appraisal tools for studies reporting prevalence data and develop a new tool for these studies in systematic reviews of prevalence. Following the development of this tool it was piloted amongst an experienced group of sixteen healthcare researchers. Results The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews. Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use. Some comments were provided which helped refine the criteria. Conclusion The results of this pilot study found that this tool was well-accepted by users and further refinements have been made to the tool based on their feedback. We now put forward this tool for use by authors conducting prevalence systematic reviews.

Petros Skapinakis

Barnaby Reeves

Handbook of Theory and Methods in Applied Health Research

Faraz Ahmed

International Journal of Nursing Studies

Pierre Pluye

Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT.The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation.On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies.The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Susan Armijo-Olivo , Greta G Cummings

Academic radiology

James Rawson

European Journal of Epidemiology

Marija Glisic

BMC Medical Research …

Declan Devane

Kusnadi Jaya

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Research Square

Steffen Mickenautsch , Stefan Rupf

Brazilian Journal of Health Review

Karyn Lehmkuhl

Margaret Foster

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

A guide to critical appraisal of evidence

Fineout-Overholt, Ellen PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN

Ellen Fineout-Overholt is the Mary Coulter Dowdy Distinguished Professor of Nursing at the University of Texas at Tyler School of Nursing, Tyler, Tex.

The author has disclosed no financial relationships related to this article.

Critical appraisal is the assessment of research studies' worth to clinical practice. Critical appraisal—the heart of evidence-based practice—involves four phases: rapid critical appraisal, evaluation, synthesis, and recommendation. This article reviews each phase and provides examples, tips, and caveats to help evidence appraisers successfully determine what is known about a clinical issue. Patient outcomes are improved when clinicians apply a body of evidence to daily practice.

How do nurses assess the quality of clinical research? This article outlines a stepwise approach to critical appraisal of research studies' worth to clinical practice: rapid critical appraisal, evaluation, synthesis, and recommendation. When critical care nurses apply a body of valid, reliable, and applicable evidence to daily practice, patient outcomes are improved.

Critical care nurses can best explain the reasoning for their clinical actions when they understand the worth of the research supporting their practices. In c ritical appraisal , clinicians assess the worth of research studies to clinical practice. Given that achieving improved patient outcomes is the reason patients enter the healthcare system, nurses must be confident their care techniques will reliably achieve best outcomes.

Nurses must verify that the information supporting their clinical care is valid, reliable, and applicable. Validity of research refers to the quality of research methods used, or how good of a job researchers did conducting a study. Reliability of research means similar outcomes can be achieved when the care techniques of a study are replicated by clinicians. Applicability of research means it was conducted in a similar sample to the patients for whom the findings will be applied. These three criteria determine a study's worth in clinical practice.

Appraising the worth of research requires a standardized approach. This approach applies to both quantitative research (research that deals with counting things and comparing those counts) and qualitative research (research that describes experiences and perceptions). The word critique has a negative connotation. In the past, some clinicians were taught that studies with flaws should be discarded. Today, it is important to consider all valid and reliable research informative to what we understand as best practice. Therefore, the author developed the critical appraisal methodology that enables clinicians to determine quickly which evidence is worth keeping and which must be discarded because of poor validity, reliability, or applicability.

Evidence-based practice process

The evidence-based practice (EBP) process is a seven-step problem-solving approach that begins with data gathering (see Seven steps to EBP ). During daily practice, clinicians gather data supporting inquiry into a particular clinical issue (Step 0). The description is then framed as an answerable question (Step 1) using the PICOT question format ( P opulation of interest; I ssue of interest or intervention; C omparison to the intervention; desired O utcome; and T ime for the outcome to be achieved). 1 Consistently using the PICOT format helps ensure that all elements of the clinical issue are covered. Next, clinicians conduct a systematic search to gather data answering the PICOT question (Step 2). Using the PICOT framework, clinicians can systematically search multiple databases to find available studies to help determine the best practice to achieve the desired outcome for their patients. When the systematic search is completed, the work of critical appraisal begins (Step 3). The known group of valid and reliable studies that answers the PICOT question is called the body of evidence and is the foundation for the best practice implementation (Step 4). Next, clinicians evaluate integration of best evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences and values to determine if the outcomes in the studies are realized in practice (Step 5). Because healthcare is a community of practice, it is important that experiences with evidence implementation be shared, whether the outcome is what was expected or not. This enables critical care nurses concerned with similar care issues to better understand what has been successful and what has not (Step 6).

Critical appraisal of evidence

The first phase of critical appraisal, rapid critical appraisal, begins with determining which studies will be kept in the body of evidence. All valid, reliable, and applicable studies on the topic should be included. This is accomplished using design-specific checklists with key markers of good research. When clinicians determine a study is one they want to keep (a “keeper” study) and that it belongs in the body of evidence, they move on to phase 2, evaluation. 2

In the evaluation phase, the keeper studies are put together in a table so that they can be compared as a body of evidence, rather than individual studies. This phase of critical appraisal helps clinicians identify what is already known about a clinical issue. In the third phase, synthesis, certain data that provide a snapshot of a particular aspect of the clinical issue are pulled out of the evaluation table to showcase what is known. These snapshots of information underpin clinicians' decision-making and lead to phase 4, recommendation. A recommendation is a specific statement based on the body of evidence indicating what should be done—best practice. Critical appraisal is not complete without a specific recommendation. Each of the phases is explained in more detail below.

Phase 1: Rapid critical appraisal . Rapid critical appraisal involves using two tools that help clinicians determine if a research study is worthy of keeping in the body of evidence. The first tool, General Appraisal Overview for All Studies (GAO), covers the basics of all research studies (see Elements of the General Appraisal Overview for All Studies ). Sometimes, clinicians find gaps in knowledge about certain elements of research studies (for example, sampling or statistics) and need to review some content. Conducting an internet search for resources that explain how to read a research paper, such as an instructional video or step-by-step guide, can be helpful. Finding basic definitions of research methods often helps resolve identified gaps.

To accomplish the GAO, it is best to begin with finding out why the study was conducted and how it answers the PICOT question (for example, does it provide information critical care nurses want to know from the literature). If the study purpose helps answer the PICOT question, then the type of study design is evaluated. The study design is compared with the hierarchy of evidence for the type of PICOT question. The higher the design falls within the hierarchy or levels of evidence, the more confidence nurses can have in its finding, if the study was conducted well. 3,4 Next, find out what the researchers wanted to learn from their study. These are called the research questions or hypotheses. Research questions are just what they imply; insufficient information from theories or the literature are available to guide an educated guess, so a question is asked. Hypotheses are reasonable expectations guided by understanding from theory and other research that predicts what will be found when the research is conducted. The research questions or hypotheses provide the purpose of the study.

Next, the sample size is evaluated. Expectations of sample size are present for every study design. As an example, consider as a rule that quantitative study designs operate best when there is a sample size large enough to establish that relationships do not exist by chance. In general, the more participants in a study, the more confidence in the findings. Qualitative designs operate best with fewer people in the sample because these designs represent a deeper dive into the understanding or experience of each person in the study. 5 It is always important to describe the sample, as clinicians need to know if the study sample resembles their patients. It is equally important to identify the major variables in the study and how they are defined because this helps clinicians best understand what the study is about.

The final step in the GAO is to consider the analyses that answer the study research questions or confirm the study hypothesis. This is another opportunity for clinicians to learn, as learning about statistics in healthcare education has traditionally focused on conducting statistical tests as opposed to interpreting statistical tests. Understanding what the statistics indicate about the study findings is an imperative of critical appraisal of quantitative evidence.

The second tool is one of the variety of rapid critical appraisal checklists that speak to validity, reliability, and applicability of specific study designs, which are available at varying locations (see Critical appraisal resources ). When choosing a checklist to implement with a group of critical care nurses, it is important to verify that the checklist is complete and simple to use. Be sure to check that the checklist has answers to three key questions. The first question is: Are the results of the study valid? Related subquestions should help nurses discern if certain markers of good research design are present within the study. For example, identifying that study participants were randomly assigned to study groups is an essential marker of good research for a randomized controlled trial. Checking these essential markers helps clinicians quickly review a study to check off these important requirements. Clinical judgment is required when the study lacks any of the identified quality markers. Clinicians must discern whether the absence of any of the essential markers negates the usefulness of the study findings. 6-9

The second question is: What are the study results? This is answered by reviewing whether the study found what it was expecting to and if those findings were meaningful to clinical practice. Basic knowledge of how to interpret statistics is important for understanding quantitative studies, and basic knowledge of qualitative analysis greatly facilitates understanding those results. 6-9

The third question is: Are the results applicable to my patients? Answering this question involves consideration of the feasibility of implementing the study findings into the clinicians' environment as well as any contraindication within the clinicians' patient populations. Consider issues such as organizational politics, financial feasibility, and patient preferences. 6-9

When these questions have been answered, clinicians must decide about whether to keep the particular study in the body of evidence. Once the final group of keeper studies is identified, clinicians are ready to move into the phase of critical appraisal. 6-9

Phase 2: Evaluation . The goal of evaluation is to determine how studies within the body of evidence agree or disagree by identifying common patterns of information across studies. For example, an evaluator may compare whether the same intervention is used or if the outcomes are measured in the same way across all studies. A useful tool to help clinicians accomplish this is an evaluation table. This table serves two purposes: first, it enables clinicians to extract data from the studies and place the information in one table for easy comparison with other studies; and second, it eliminates the need for further searching through piles of periodicals for the information. (See Bonus Content: Evaluation table headings .) Although the information for each of the columns may not be what clinicians consider as part of their daily work, the information is important for them to understand about the body of evidence so that they can explain the patterns of agreement or disagreement they identify across studies. Further, the in-depth understanding of the body of evidence from the evaluation table helps with discussing the relevant clinical issue to facilitate best practice. Their discussion comes from a place of knowledge and experience, which affords the most confidence. The patterns and in-depth understanding are what lead to the synthesis phase of critical appraisal.

The key to a successful evaluation table is simplicity. Entering data into the table in a simple, consistent manner offers more opportunity for comparing studies. 6-9 For example, using abbreviations versus complete sentences in all columns except the final one allows for ease of comparison. An example might be the dependent variable of depression defined as “feelings of severe despondency and dejection” in one study and as “feeling sad and lonely” in another study. 10 Because these are two different definitions, they need to be different dependent variables. Clinicians must use their clinical judgment to discern that these different dependent variables require different names and abbreviations and how these further their comparison across studies.

Sample and theoretical or conceptual underpinnings are important to understanding how studies compare. Similar samples and settings across studies increase agreement. Several studies with the same conceptual framework increase the likelihood of common independent variables and dependent variables. The findings of a study are dependent on the analyses conducted. That is why an analysis column is dedicated to recording the kind of analysis used (for example, the name of the statistical analyses for quantitative studies). Only statistics that help answer the clinical question belong in this column. The findings column must have a result for each of the analyses listed; however, in the actual results, not in words. For example, a clinician lists a t -test as a statistic in the analysis column, so a t -value should reflect whether the groups are different as well as probability ( P -value or confidence interval) that reflects statistical significance. The explanation for these results would go in the last column that describes worth of the research to practice. This column is much more flexible and contains other information such as the level of evidence, the studies' strengths and limitations, any caveats about the methodology, or other aspects of the study that would be helpful to its use in practice. The final piece of information in this column is a recommendation for how this study would be used in practice. Each of the studies in the body of evidence that addresses the clinical question is placed in one evaluation table to facilitate the ease of comparing across the studies. This comparison sets the stage for synthesis.

Phase 3: Synthesis . In the synthesis phase, clinicians pull out key information from the evaluation table to produce a snapshot of the body of evidence. A table also is used here to feature what is known and help all those viewing the synthesis table to come to the same conclusion. A hypothetical example table included here demonstrates that a music therapy intervention is effective in reducing the outcome of oxygen saturation (SaO 2 ) in six of the eight studies in the body of evidence that evaluated that outcome (see Sample synthesis table: Impact on outcomes ). Simply using arrows to indicate effect offers readers a collective view of the agreement across studies that prompts action. Action may be to change practice, affirm current practice, or conduct research to strengthen the body of evidence by collaborating with nurse scientists.

When synthesizing evidence, there are at least two recommended synthesis tables, including the level-of-evidence table and the impact-on-outcomes table for quantitative questions, such as therapy or relevant themes table for “meaning” questions about human experience. (See Bonus Content: Level of evidence for intervention studies: Synthesis of type .) The sample synthesis table also demonstrates that a final column labeled synthesis indicates agreement across the studies. Of the three outcomes, the most reliable for clinicians to see with music therapy is SaO 2 , with positive results in six out of eight studies. The second most reliable outcome would be reducing increased respiratory rate (RR). Parental engagement has the least support as a reliable outcome, with only two of five studies showing positive results. Synthesis tables make the recommendation clear to all those who are involved in caring for that patient population. Although the two synthesis tables mentioned are a great start, the evidence may require more synthesis tables to adequately explain what is known. These tables are the foundation that supports clinically meaningful recommendations.

Phase 4: Recommendation . Recommendations are definitive statements based on what is known from the body of evidence. For example, with an intervention question, clinicians should be able to discern from the evidence if they will reliably get the desired outcome when they deliver the intervention as it was in the studies. In the sample synthesis table, the recommendation would be to implement the music therapy intervention across all settings with the population, and measure SaO 2 and RR, with the expectation that both would be optimally improved with the intervention. When the synthesis demonstrates that studies consistently verify an outcome occurs as a result of an intervention, however that intervention is not currently practiced, care is not best practice. Therefore, a firm recommendation to deliver the intervention and measure the appropriate outcomes must be made, which concludes critical appraisal of the evidence.

A recommendation that is off limits is conducting more research, as this is not the focus of clinicians' critical appraisal. In the case of insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for practice change, the recommendation would be to continue current practice and monitor outcomes and processes until there are more reliable studies to be added to the body of evidence. Researchers who use the critical appraisal process may indeed identify gaps in knowledge, research methods, or analyses, for example, that they then recommend studies that would fill in the identified gaps. In this way, clinicians and nurse scientists work together to build relevant, efficient bodies of evidence that guide clinical practice.

Evidence into action

Critical appraisal helps clinicians understand the literature so they can implement it. Critical care nurses have a professional and ethical responsibility to make sure their care is based on a solid foundation of available evidence that is carefully appraised using the phases outlined here. Critical appraisal allows for decision-making based on evidence that demonstrates reliable outcomes. Any other approach to the literature is likely haphazard and may lead to misguided care and unreliable outcomes. 11 Evidence translated into practice should have the desired outcomes and their measurement defined from the body of evidence. It is also imperative that all critical care nurses carefully monitor care delivery outcomes to establish that best outcomes are sustained. With the EBP paradigm as the basis for decision-making and the EBP process as the basis for addressing clinical issues, critical care nurses can improve patient, provider, and system outcomes by providing best care.

Seven steps to EBP

Step 0–A spirit of inquiry to notice internal data that indicate an opportunity for positive change.

Step 1– Ask a clinical question using the PICOT question format.

Step 2–Conduct a systematic search to find out what is already known about a clinical issue.

Step 3–Conduct a critical appraisal (rapid critical appraisal, evaluation, synthesis, and recommendation).

Step 4–Implement best practices by blending external evidence with clinician expertise and patient preferences and values.

Step 5–Evaluate evidence implementation to see if study outcomes happened in practice and if the implementation went well.

Step 6–Share project results, good or bad, with others in healthcare.

Adapted from: Steps of the evidence-based practice (EBP) process leading to high-quality healthcare and best patient outcomes. © Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2017. Used with permission.

Critical appraisal resources

• The Joanna Briggs Institute http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists
• Center for Evidence-Based Medicine www.cebm.net/critical-appraisal
• Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice . 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.

A full set of critical appraisal checklists are available in the appendices.

Bonus content!

This article includes supplementary online-exclusive material. Visit the online version of this article at www.nursingcriticalcare.com to access this content.

critical appraisal; decision-making; evaluation of research; evidence-based practice; synthesis

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Determining the level of evidence: experimental research appraisal, searching with critical appraisal tools, nurse-driven protocols, recognizing and preventing drug diversion, pulmonary embolism: prevention, recognition, and treatment.