Critical appraisal tools for assessing the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist and MMAT have been previously validated.
“both have been previously validated [23, 24].”
Cites
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2012) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 · Cited by 1,331 · see citing works
Self-citationPluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Self-citationReviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool
Sirriyeh, R., Lawton, R., Gardner, P., & Armitage, G. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x · Cited by 715 · 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
“Moreover, it includes specific criteria for mixed methods studies, which is not often found in other tools (Pluye, 2013).”
Self-citationPluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363 · see citing works
Self-citationImproving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008 · Cited by 1,082 · see citing works
“According to our review, the MMAT is the only tool that includes specific criteria for mixed methods studies [44].”
MethodSelf-citationAguirre Velasco, A., Cruz, I. S. S., Billings, J., Jimenez, M., & Rowe, S. (2020) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02659-0 · Cited by 736 · see citing works
“For the quality assessment, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist [21] and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [22], which were appropriate due to the variety of study designs included in this review; both have been previously validated [23-24].”
Wozney, L., Huguet, A., Bennett, K., Radomski, A. D., Hartling, L., Dyson, M., McGrath, P. J., & Newton, A. S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7573 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
“The methodological quality of evidence (rigor) around each therapy was assessed, where possible, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), an effective and practical quality assessment tool [19].”
Jacobsen, P., Hodkinson, K., Peters, E., & Chadwick, P. (2018) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2018.106 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pluye, P.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Pluye, Pierre
- ORCID
- Pluye, Pierre
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-12-28
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 722-722
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W1605263937
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- critical appraisal tools, methodological quality assessment, qualitative study, quantitative research, mixed-methods study, systematic reviews
- MeSH terms
- Evaluation Studies as Topic, Health Services Research, Research Design, Benchmarking
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
