Critical Appraisal of Systematic Review using CASP Tool in Nursing

This report critically appraises a systematic review using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. It examines the research question: "Is Chinese medicine more effective than normal medicine for breast cancer patients in reducing depression?" The report details the CASP tool's three sections (A, B, and C), addressing questions about the validity of results, the results themselves, and their applicability. Section A assesses the clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of included studies, and the quality assessment methods. Section B focuses on the review's findings, including numerical results and precision. Section C evaluates the applicability of the results to the local population, considering outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The report concludes that the CASP tool is essential for evaluating research articles, aiding authors in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their systematic reviews, and it references relevant sources like Bennion & Molassiotis (2013), Buccheri & Sharifi (2017), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018).

Running head: EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
CASP Tool for Systematic Review
Student Name
University Name
Author Note

1
NURSING
The summary of results which are carried out to design healthcare studies by
providing a high level of evidence is called a systematic review (Linsday, 2011). In the
following essay, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool will be used to
critically appraise the research question “Is Chinese medicine more effective than normal
medicine for breast cancer patients in reducing depression?” (Jafari, Goudarzian & Nesami
2018). There are ten basic questions which need to be answered during the appraisal of the
systematic review which will be discussed in detail.
These agendas were intended to be utilized as instructive educational devices, as a
major aspect of a workshop setting. This is the motivation behind why there is no scoring
framework in the agenda (Bennion & Molassiotis 2013). For each new agenda, a gathering of
specialists were collected to create and direct the agenda and the workshop position with
which it would be utilized. Throughout the year, in general changes have been made to the
arrangement, however an ongoing overview of agenda clients emphasized that the
fundamental configuration keeps on being valuable and fitting (Busheri & Sharifi 2017).
There are three segments on which the instrument is partitioned – Section A, B and C.
The section A deals with the results of the systematic review. It questions whether the
results that have been achieved are valid or not. The first question asks whether the review
had focused clearly on the question or not. The population, or the intervention or the outcome
that was considered can be used as an issue here (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2018).
In the second question, it is asked whether appropriate papers were used which addresses the
review’s question and has a suitable design of the study. The third question deals with the
relevance of the studies that were included in the study. It mainly asks the bibliographic
databases and the reference lists that were used to conduct the study. The fourth question asks

2
NURSING
the authors whether quality of the studies were assessed prior to starting the work. The
precision of the studies should be an integral part for the authors to consider. In the fifth
question, it is asked if it will be reasonable if the results of the review were combined. In
these cases, similar results of studies can be incorporated in the system review. If there is any
variation in the results of the studies that are considered, then it will be discussed here.
The section B of the critical appraisal tool deals with the results that have been found
from all of the studies that have been considered for the systematic review. Careful
consideration needs to be given to the results that have been obtained from the various
studies. The sixth question asks what the results of the review are. It is in reflection of the
clear results that will be stated here (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2018). The results
need to be numerically appropriate with the question of the review so that it is included in the
final paper. The expression of the data needs to be critically evaluated on the basis of whether
the result are in the NNT form or the odds ratio form. The seventh question revolves around
the precision of the results that have been obtained. Confidence intervals of the articles that
have been considered for this review should be observed carefully. There might be a
possibility of a true value that can be obtained from the list of observed data of an unknown
parameter that might be useful for the precision of the study.
The section C comprises of three more questions which ask whether the results that
have been obtained will be applicable to the people of the study in local or not. The eighth
question in this section asks whether the results can be applied to the local population. The
local setting is varied from the setting that was used for the review to be conducted. The real-
time affectivity of the results needs to be evaluated to release the paper (Critical Appraisal
Skills Programme 2018). The ninth question deals with the outcomes that have been

3
NURSING
considered for the review. It asks if the outcomes and other information have been considered
in obtaining appropriate results for the review (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2018).
The tenth question asks whether the results that have been obtained are worth the cost and
harm of the local population.
Finally, it can be concluded that CASP tool is an essential tool that is used to critically
appraise a research article. The three sections that have been mentioned above help in proper
evaluation of the research article and the question. It helps the author in understanding the
positive and negative points of their systematic review. There is scope of improvement on the
author’s part if the outcome of the tool is not worthy as per the author.

4
NURSING
References
Bennion, A.E. and Molassiotis, A., 2013. Qualitative research into the symptom experiences
of adult cancer patients after treatments: a systematic review and meta-
synthesis. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21(1), pp.9-25.
Buccheri, R.K. and Sharifi, C., 2017. Critical Appraisal Tools and Reporting Guidelines for
Evidence‐Based Practice. Worldviews on Evidence
‐Based Nursing, 14(6), pp.463-472.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018). CASP (Systematic Review) Checklist. [online]
Available at: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-
Review-Checklist_2018.pdf. Accessed: 15 August 2019
Jafari, A., Goudarzian, A.H. and Nesami, M.B., 2018. Depression in women with breast
cancer: a systematic review of cross-sectional studies in Iran. Asian Pacific journal of
cancer prevention: APJCP, 19(1), p.1.
Linsday, U. (2011). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc
Psychiatry, 20(1), pp.57–59.