Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

Abstract

Critical appraisal skills are important for anyone wishing to make informed decisions or improve the quality of healthcare delivery. A good critical appraisal provides information regarding the believability and usefulness of a particular study. However, the appraisal process is often overlooked, and critically appraising quantitative research can be daunting for both researchers and clinicians. This chapter introduces the concept of critical appraisal and highlights its importance in evidence-based practice. Readers are then introduced to the most common quantitative study designs and key questions to ask when appraising each type of study. These studies include systematic reviews, experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials), and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies). This chapter also provides the tools most commonly used to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of quantitative studies. Overall, this chapter serves as a step-by-step guide to appraising quantitative research in healthcare settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318(7192):1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora A, Scott JA, Bhole S, Do L, Schwarz E, Blinkhorn AS. Early childhood feeding practices and dental caries in preschool children: a multi-centre birth cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, … Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri R, Schabrun S, Te M, Chipchase L. Hand therapy versus corticosteroid injections in the treatment of de quervain’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2015.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Evidence-based Management. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 20 Dec 2017, from https://www.cebma.org/resources-and-tools/what-is-critical-appraisal/.

  • Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Critical appraisal worksheets. 2017. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cebm.net/blog/2014/06/10/critical-appraisal/.

  • Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00026-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Casp checklists. 2017. Retrieved 5 Dec 2017, from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.

  • Dawes M, Davies P, Gray A, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R. Evidence-based practice: a primer for health care professionals. London: Elsevier; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Research methods: reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh T, Donald A. Evidence-based health care workbook: understanding research for individual and group learning. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, Guyatt G, Bass E, Brill-Edwards P, … Gerstein H. Users’ guides to the medical literature: II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, … Jaeschke R. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4), 383–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Birger Hagen K. Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Is restricted randomisation necessary? BMJ. 2006;332(7556):1506–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. The cochrane collaboration. 2009. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-based practice across the health professions. Chatswood: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann T, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, … Johnston M. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 2014;348: g1687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 4 Dec 2017, from http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html.

  • Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Mishra S, Patel S, Naik E, Kumar A. Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis. 2009;30(2):112–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7184.62770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2017. Retrieved 17 Dec 2017, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.

  • Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro scale. 2017. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017, from https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/.

  • Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: F.A. Davis Company/Publishers; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7203):185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, … Kristjansson E. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.

  • Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, … Boutron I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, … Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, … Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

    Rocco Cavaleri & Amit Arora

  2. Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia

    Sameer Bhole

  3. Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia

    Amit Arora

  4. Oral Health Services, Sydney Local Health District and Sydney Dental Hospital, NSW Health, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia

    Sameer Bhole & Amit Arora

Authors
  1. Rocco Cavaleri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sameer Bhole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amit Arora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rocco Cavaleri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science & Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Cavaleri, R., Bhole, S., Arora, A. (2018). Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research
    Published:
    12 June 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-2

  2. Original

    Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research
    Published:
    27 February 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_120-1

Search

Navigation