Tools for the Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51987/Rev.Hosp.Ital.B.Aires.v46i1.1274Keywords:
systematic reviews, critical appraisal, analysis, evidence-based medicineAbstract
Systematic reviews aim to collect, analyze, and synthesize all available scientific evidence on a specific research question. Although reviews are a fundamental tool for evidence-based decision-making, their correct interpretation and analysis can present certain challenges. This manuscript addresses different tools to guide the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and to determine their usefulness in supporting decision-making, based on two instruments: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the checklist of the United Kingdom Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Critical appraisal of systematic reviews is crucial to ensure the validity, quality, and applicability of their results.
Downloads
References
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. 553 p.
Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(6):431-439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.75.6.431
Mendis K. What is evidence-based medicine? Ceylon Med J. 2021;66(3):154-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v66i3.9495
Río-de-la-Loza-Zamora JG, López-Ortiz G. Barreras para el desarrollo de investigación en medicina familiar en Iberoamérica: revisión sistemática. Rev Mex Med Fam. 2022;30;9(2):49-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24875/RMF.21000125
Sgarbossa N, Ibáñez Cobaisse M, González Cianciulli G, et al. Revisiones sistemáticas: conceptos clave para profesionales de la salud. Medwave. 2022;22(9):2622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2022.09.2622
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. How to use the CASP checklists [Internet]. Oxford: CASP; 2025 [consulta 2025 may 20]. Disponible en: https://casp-uk.net/how-to-use-checklist/.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
Ciapponi A. AMSTAR-2: herramienta de evaluación crítica de revisiones sistemáticas de estudios de intervenciones de salud. Evid Actual Pract Ambul . 2018;21(1):4-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51987/evidencia.v21i1.6834
von Luckner A, Riederer F. Magnesium in migraine prophylaxis-is there an evidence-based rationale? A systematic review. Headache. 2018;58(2):199-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13217
Talandashti MK, Shahinfar H, Delgarm P, et al. Effects of selected dietary supplements on migraine prophylaxis: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurol Sci. 2025;46(2):651-670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07794-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
