Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention

Heise, Thomas L., Seidler, Andreas, Girbig, Maria, Freiberg, Alice, Alayli, Adrienne, Fischer, Maria, Haß, Wolfgang, Zeeb, Hajo·2022·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4PMC PMC9791771
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: For over three decades researchers have developed critical appraisal tools (CATs) for assessing the scientific quality of research overviews. Most established CATs for reviews in evidence-based medicine and evidence-based public health (EBPH) focus on systematic reviews (SRs) with studies on experimental interventions or exposure included. EBPH- and implementation-oriented organisations and decision-makers, however, often seek access to rapid reviews (RRs) or scoping reviews (ScRs) for rapid evidence synthesis and research field exploration. Until now, no CAT is available to assess the quality of SRs, RRs, and ScRs following a unified approach. We set out to develop such a CAT. Methods: The development process of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews (CAT HPPR) included six phases: (i) the definition of important review formats and complementary approaches, (ii) the identification of relevant CATs, (iii) prioritisation, selection and adaptation of quality criteria using a consensus approach, (iv) development of the rating system and bilingual guidance documents, (v) engaging with experts in the field for piloting/optimising the CAT, and (vi) approval of the final CAT. We used a pragmatic search approach to identify reporting guidelines/standards (n = 3; e.g. PRISMA, MECIR) as well as guidance documents (n = 17; e.g. for reviews with mixed-methods approach) to develop working definitions for SRs, RRs, ScRs, and other review types (esp. those defined by statistical methods or included data sources). Results: We successfully identified 14 relevant CATs, predominantly for SRs (e.g. AMSTAR 2), and extracted 46 items. Following consensual discussions 15 individual criteria were included in our CAT and tailored to the review types of interest. The CAT was piloted with 14 different reviews which were eligible to be included in a new German database looking at interventions in health promotion and prevention in different implementation settings. Conclusions: The newly developed CAT HPPR follows a unique uniformed approach to assess a set of heterogeneous reviews (e.g. reviews from problem identification to policy evaluations) to assist end-users needs. Feedback of external experts showed general feasibility and satisfaction with the tool. Future studies should further formally test the validity of CAT HPPR using larger sets of reviews.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Critical appraisal process using CAT HPPR
Fig. 1 Critical appraisal process using CAT HPPRCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Example of a “Coding box” for C1
Fig. 2 Example of a “Coding box” for C1CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Example of the assessment form for C1
Fig. 3 Example of the assessment form for C1CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Healthevidence.org: quality assessment tool - Review Articles https://www.healthevidence.org/documents/our-appraisal-tools/QA_Tool&Dictionary_10Nov16.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.
  2. Evidence analysis manual - appendix 10: quality criteria Checklist: Review Article https://www.andeal.org/vault/2440/web/files/2016_April_EA_Manual.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.
  3. Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist https://bestbets.org/ca/pdf/review.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.
  4. Critical Appraisal of a Meta-analysis or Systematic Review https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Appraisal-Questions-for-a-SR-or-MA-july-2014.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.
  5. Critical appraisal worksheets: Systematic Reviews https://www.cebm.net/systematic-review-4/ Accessed 24 July 2019.
  6. CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Systematic Review https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist_2018.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.
  7. Systematic review (of therapy) worksheet https://ebm-tools.knowledgetranslation.net/themes/blue/files/uploads/sr-worksheet.doc Accessed 24 July 2019.
  8. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J. 2010;4:84–91.
  9. EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK274092/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK274092.pdf Accessed 24 July 2019.

Cited by

See all 20

Metadata

Authors
Heise, T. L., Seidler, A., Girbig, M., Freiberg, A., Alayli, A., Fischer, M., Haß, W., & Zeeb, H.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-12-26
Volume
22
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2288
DOI
10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4
PMC
PMC9791771
Cited by
20
References
37
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • GKV-Bündnis für Gesundheit, a joint initiative of all German health insurance funds
  • Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie – BIPS GmbH

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.