From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term risk of bias assessment.

Automated summary

The critical appraisal of literature has advanced through epidemiologic research methods and evidence-based medicine, where scientific support is used to guide medical teaching and practice. As evidence synthesis methodology has developed, terms such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, and study validity have been used to differentiate the assessment of primary research from synthesized research. This paper discusses the definitions and characteristics of these terms, recommending the adoption of the term risk of bias assessment by JBI.