Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis

1
Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis
Students Name
Institutional Affiliations
Revised May 2017 BS

2
Appraisal of A Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis
Your Name ______________________________________________Date:__________
Directions: Access the full version of this Systematic Review (SR). There are 14 questions for
the four parts of this appraisal assignment. Analytically and concisely answer each question and
support with a brief comment and the page number(s) in the SR. Use APA format (page
numbers) for all quotes and citing facts from the SR. If page numbers for supporting evidence
are not provided, the appraisal is not acceptable and will be returned for one revision.
 Write the APA Citation for this study: See Module 2 for an example.
Ciciriello, S., Johnston, R.V., Osborne, R.H., Wicks, I., deKroo, T., Clerehan, R., O’Neill,
C., & Buchbinder R. (2013). Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about
prescribed and over-the-counter medications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
2013 (4), 1-241, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008416.pub2.
Explain your search strategy in obtaining the full text of this SR
Via the Foley Library Portal, I accessed the Cochrane Library after which keyed in the title of the
article assigned “Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over-
the-counter medications ” into the search field then searched yielding one result which matched
the citation delivered in the study case. Through the process I was able access or get the PDF of
the systematic review.
Part I. Is There a Clear Question and Are the Results of the Study Valid?
1a. Was an 'a priori' design provided? Search the “history” section of the Cochrane SR for
the information on the “protocol”.
 Yes □ No
□ Not addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
The authors stated the primary objective of the study “To examine the impacts of multimedia
patient education interventions about prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications in people of
all ages, including children and carers” (Ciciriello et al., 2013 p. 4).Additionally, the exclusion
and inclusions are also discussed in the background.
1b. Write you translation of the primary aim/objective of this SR into PICOT format.
Revised May 2017 BS

3
P People of all ages, including carers and children.
I Impacts of multimedia patient education interventions (Ciciriello et al., 2013 p. 4)
C Traditional forms of education delivery
O Examine the impacts of multimedia patient education intervention about over‐the‐
counter and prescribed medications.
T Not indicated
2. Was a duplicate study selection and duplicate data extraction method utilized?
□ Yes □ No
□ Not Addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
Two independent authors made preliminary selections of potentially eligible research on the
basis of abstracts and titles (Ciciriello et al., 2013 p. 4). A full-text version of the research was
gotten for further review when there was qualm on the inclusion of the study at this phase. In the
subsequent phase of the review, the two independently working authors’ dag out and assembled
critical data from the selected articles and they state that the incongruities in the stages were
determined or solved through discussion.
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed and is it unlikely that important,
relevant studies were missed?
□ Yes □ No
□ Not addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
It is important to note that the search relied upon the outcome of the previous version of the
systemic review whose dates ranged from 1950-2011. The biographers of the present systemic
review searched many databases including MEDLINE, Central, and EMBASE from (1974-June
2011 (Ciciriello et al., 2013 p. 4). The authors detailed all the databases which the search was
Revised May 2017 BS

4
done and also their search strategy as well as the results obtained. In the same token, the authors
brushed up the reference lists of the research in an attempt to establish any other research related
to the review. The authors also cited textbooks as references; however, it is not known whether
specialized experts or registers in the field were explicitly consulted.
4. Was a list of studies (both included and excluded) provided?
A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Sometimes there are too many
excluded studies to list in the SR, but the SR authors should explain reasons or types of studies
excluded.
□ Yes □ No
□ Not addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
The authors included the list of studies and mentioned that they identified twenty-four studies
which enrolled more than 8000 participants.
5. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
□ Yes □ No
□ Not addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
The authors included tables, characteristics, and raw data and analyzed the data.
6. Was the scientific quality (methodological rigor) of the included studies sufficiently
assessed and documented? What quality criteria were identified ‘a priori’?
□ Yes □ No
□ Not addressed in SR □ Not applicable
Comment and supporting information:
The two independent authors utilized the Risk Bias Tool to examine the risk for bias in every
included research including a discussion which defined the biases (Higgins, Altman & Sterne,
2011).
Revised May 2017 BS