The Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta-analysis: A framework for critically appraising anatomical meta-analyses

The hallmark of evidence-based medicine is the meta-analysis (MA). For much of its rich history, the field of anatomy has been dominated by descriptive, cadaveric studies. In the last two decades, quantitative measurements and statistical analyses have frequently accompanied such studies. These studies have directly led to the publication of anatomical MAs, which have ushered in the exciting field of evidence-based anatomy. Although critical appraisal tools exist for clinical MAs, none of them are specifically tailored for anatomical MAs. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a framework by which clinical anatomists and others can critically appraise anatomical MAs using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta-analysis (CATAM). Using a running example from a recently published MA, we show how to use the CATAM rubric in a step-by-step fashion. Each scored section of the CATAM rubric is summated into a total score (maximum 50 points). This score is then referenced to a conversion chart, which assigns a qualitative value to the MA in a range from very good to poor. Future studies can investigate the interrater reliability of the instrument, and possibly subject the CATAM rubric to a Delphi panel. As anatomical MAs become more commonplace at surgical grand rounds and journal clubs in academic medical centers throughout the world, we hope that the CATAM rubric can help facilitate meaningful discussions about the quality and clinical relevance of anatomical MAs.

Automated summary

The hallmark of evidence-based medicine is the meta-analysis. However, there is currently no specific evaluation tool for anatomical meta-analysis. This study aims to provide a framework for critically appraising anatomical meta-analysis using the CATAM. Each section of the CATAM is scored and summed into a total score, which is then qualitatively referenced using a conversion chart. The CATAM rubric can facilitate meaningful discussions about the quality and clinical relevance of anatomical meta-analysis.