ProductsLogo
LogoStudy Documents
LogoAI Grader
LogoAI Answer
LogoAI Code Checker
LogoPlagiarism Checker
LogoAI Paraphraser
LogoAI Quiz
LogoAI Detector
PricingBlogAbout Us
logo

CASP Checklist: 10 questions for Systematic Review Appraisal

Verified

Added on  2023/04/20

|4
|943
|478
AI Summary
This document provides a checklist of 10 questions to help researchers and healthcare practitioners appraise the validity and relevance of a systematic review. The checklist covers issues such as the clarity of the research question, the inclusion of relevant studies, the assessment of study quality, the appropriateness of combining results, and the applicability of the results to the local population. The checklist is designed for use in educational workshops and does not include a scoring system.

Contribute Materials

Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your documents today.
Document Page
CASP Checklist:10 questions to help you make sense of aSystematic Review
How to use this appraisal tool:Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising
systematic review study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results?(Section B)
Will the results help locally?(Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you
systematically.The first two questions are screening questions and can be
If the answerto both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the rem
some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to reco
can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prom
question. These are designed to remindyou why the question is impo
reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational peda
workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoringsystem.
(randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Use
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, SackettDL, and Cook DJ),
health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to deve
and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years over
have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist user
format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical
Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Systematic Review) Chec
Available at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed.
©CASPthis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecom
sa/3.0/www.casp-uk.net
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare Ltd www.casp-uk.net

Secure Best Marks with AI Grader

Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Document Page
2
Section A: Are the results of the review valid?
1. Did the review address a
clearly focused question?
Yes HINT: An issue can be ‘focused’ I
the population studied
the intervention given
the outcome considered
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
2. Did the authors look for the
right type of papers?
Yes HINT: ‘The best sort of studies’ wo
address the review’s question
have an appropriate study design
(usually RCTs for papers evaluating
interventions)
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
Is it worth continuing?
3. Do you think all the
important, relevant studies
were included?
Yes HINT: Look for
which bibliographic databases w
used
follow up from reference
personal contact with expe
unpublished as well as publish
non-English language stud
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
Paper for appraisal and reference:


Document Page
3
4. Did the review’s authors do
enough to assess quality of
the included studies?
Yes HINT: The authors need to consider
rigour of the studies they have identifie
Lack of rigour may affect the stu
results (“All that glisters is not go
Merchant of Venice Act II
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
5. If the results of the review
have been combined, was it
reasonable to do so?
Yes HINT: Consider whether
results were similar from study to
results of all the included
clearly displayed
results of different studies are
reasons for any variations in
discussed
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
Section B: What are the results?
6. What are the overall results of the review? HINT: Consider
If you are clear about
bottomline’ results
what these are (numerically
appropriate)
how were the results expressed
odds ratio etc.)
Comments:

Document Page
4
7. How precise are the results? HINT: Look at the confidence interva
given
Comments:
Section C: Will the results help locally?
8. Can the results be applied to
the local population?
Yes HINT: Consider whether
the patientscoveredby the review
could be sufficiently different to
population to cause concern
your local setting is likely to differ
from that of the review
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
9. Were all important outcomes
considered?
Yes HINT: Consider whether
there is other information you wo
like to have seenCan’t Tell
No
Comments:
10. Are the benefitsworth the
harms and costs?
Yes HINT: Consider
even if this is not addresse
review, what doyou think?Can’t Tell
No
Comments:


1 out of 4
[object Object]

Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.

Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email

[object Object]