Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Tricco, Erin Lillie, W. Zarin, K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E. Akl, Christine Chang, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, Adrian Aldcroft, Michael Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, C. Godfrey, M. Macdonald, Etienne Langlois, K. Soares-Weiser, J. Moriarty, T. Clifford, zge Tunalp, S. Straus (2018)
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAnnals of Internal Medicine, 169
F. Song, L. Hooper, Y. Loke (2013)
Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it?Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials, 5
V. Williams, A. Boylan, D. Nunan (2019)
Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of biasBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 25
K. Benzies, S. Premji, K. Hayden, K. Serrett (2006)
State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 3 2
R. Whittemore (2008)
Rigour in Integrative Reviews
L. Ganong (1987)
Integrative reviews of nursing research.Research in nursing & health, 10 1
R. Pace, P. Pluye, G. Bartlett, A. Macaulay, J. Salsberg, J. Jagosh, Robbyn Seller (2012)
Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.International journal of nursing studies, 49 1
PhD Rn, Mlis Bs (2017)
Critical Appraisal Tools and Reporting Guidelines for Evidence-Based PracticeWorldviews on Evidence-based Nursing, 14
S. Sanderson, I. Tatt, J. Higgins (2007)
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.International journal of epidemiology, 36 3
G. Jackson (1980)
Methods for Integrative ReviewsReview of Educational Research, 50
M. Crowe, L. Sheppard (2011)
A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed.Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64 1
R. Garside (2014)
Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how?Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27
J. Higgins, D. Altman, P. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A. Oxman, J. Savović, K. Schulz, L. Weeks, J. Sterne (2011)
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsThe BMJ, 343
R. Adams, Palie Smart, A. Huff (2017)
Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational StudiesPOL: Other Change Management Strategy (Topic)
T. Harder, A. Takla, E. Rehfuess, Alex Sánchez-Vivar, D. Matysiak-Klose, T. Eckmanns, G. Krause, H. Gomes, A. Jansen, S. Ellis, F. Forland, R. James, J. Meerpohl, A. Morgan, H. Schünemann, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, O. Wichmann (2014)
Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal toolsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 14
Patricia Dwyer, Susan Revell (2015)
Preparing students for the emotional challenges of nursing: an integrative review.The Journal of nursing education, 54 1
Arsenio Paez (2017)
Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews.Journal of evidence-based medicine
M. Campbell, M. Egan, T. Lorenc, L. Bond, F. Popham, Candida Fenton, M. Benzeval (2014)
Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and healthSystematic Reviews, 3
P. Katrak, A. Bialocerkowski, N. Massy-Westropp, VS Kumar, K. Grimmer
Bmc Medical Research Methodology Open Access a Systematic Review of the Content of Critical Appraisal Tools
J. Quigley, Juliette Thompson, N. Halfpenny, D. Scott (2019)
Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used toolsJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25
R. Whittemore (2005)
Combining Evidence in Nursing Research: Methods and ImplicationsNursing Research, 54
C. Toronto, B. Quinn, R. Remington (2017)
Characteristics of Reviews Published in Nursing Literature: A Methodological ReviewAdvances in Nursing Science, 41
Jean Adams, F. Hillier-Brown, H. Moore, A. Lake, V. Araújo-Soares, M. White, C. Summerbell (2016)
Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studiesSystematic Reviews, 5
T. Pölkki, Outi Kanste, M. Kääriäinen, S. Elo, H. Kyngäs (2014)
The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.Journal of clinical nursing, 23 3-4
[The appraisal of the quality of literature included in an integrative review is an essential step to promote rigor and improve reporting of the review. The diversity of literature that can be included in an integrative review requires a variety of appraisal methods. There are many critical appraisal tools available to highlight different criteria. The reviewer should be mindful of what is relevant for their review when selecting an appraisal method. Transparency and consistency of the appraisal methods used will enhance the rigor of the integrative review. This chapter offers guidance on critically appraising literature in an integrative review.]
Published: Feb 18, 2020
Keywords: Integrative review; Quality appraisal; Critical appraisal; Appraisal tool; Methodological rigor; Reporting guideline
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.