No “gold standard” critical appraisal tool for allied health research: Which is the best critical appraisal tool to evaluate the quality of allied health research?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623 · see citing works
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373 · see citing works
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826 · see citing works
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545 · see citing works
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981 · see citing works
Last, J. M. (1989) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531713 · Cited by 577 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A., & Thacker, S. B. (2000) · Cited by 460 · see citing works
A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools
Katrak, P., Bialocerkowski, A. E., Massy‐Westropp, N., Kumar, S., & Grimmer, K. A. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-22 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · see citing works
“In the literature, there has been much debate about the use of summative score in critical appraisal (Glenny, 2005).”
A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed
Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Intergenerational interventions and their impact on active aging: A systematic review
Savino, M., De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2026) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.inpsyc.2025.100142 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Glenny, A.-M.
- Affiliations
- University Dental Hospital of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Glenny, Anne-Marie
- ORCID
- Glenny, Anne-Marie
- Venue
- Evidence-Based Dentistry
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 100-101
- ISSN
- 1462-0049 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5446
- OpenAlex
- W1985608330
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Evidence-Based Dentistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- critical appraisal tools, allied health research, research quality assessment, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, research design, evidence-based practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
