CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention.
Critical appraisal tool
Evidence synthesis
Health promotion
Meta-analysis
Mixed-methods
Prevention
Rapid review
Review of reviews
Scoping review
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 12 2022
26 12 2022
Historique:
received:
29
05
2022
accepted:
14
12
2022
entrez:
25
12
2022
pubmed:
26
12
2022
medline:
28
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36567381
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01821-4
pmc: PMC9791771
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
334Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Res Synth Methods. 2014 Dec;5(4):371-85
pubmed: 26052958
Ann Intern Med. 1987 Mar;106(3):485-8
pubmed: 3813259
Open Dent J. 2010 Jul 16;4:84-91
pubmed: 21088686
JAMA. 1994 Nov 2;272(17):1367-71
pubmed: 7933399
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Dec;10(4):397-410
pubmed: 23173665
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Health Promot Int. 2004 Jun;19(2):247-57
pubmed: 15128716
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Eur J Oral Sci. 2003 Apr;111(2):85-92
pubmed: 12648258
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 8;11(1):8
pubmed: 34998432
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Lancet. 2018 Nov 17;392(10160):2214-2228
pubmed: 30314860
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:1-11
pubmed: 29864540
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):121-31
pubmed: 26196082
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
pubmed: 26377409
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 19;316(8):450-5
pubmed: 3807986
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271-8
pubmed: 1834807
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Feb 03;11(1):15
pubmed: 21291558
Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108
pubmed: 19490148
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 17;6(1):204
pubmed: 29041953
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 May;64(5):552-559
pubmed: 33904939
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-7
pubmed: 24451157