![[SIGN thistle header]](../../../images/page-header-template.jpg)
Methodology Checklist 1: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Study identification (Include author, title, year of publication, journal title, pages) |
||||
Guideline topic:
|
Key Question No: | |||
Checklist completed by: |
||||
| Section 1: Internal validity |
||||
|
In a well conducted systematic review |
In this study this criterion is: |
|||
1.1 |
The study addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question. |
Well covered Adequately addressed Poorly addressed |
Not addressed Not reported Not applicable |
|
|
1.2 |
A description of the methodology used is included. |
Well covered Adequately addressed Poorly addressed |
Not addressed Not reported Not applicable |
|
1.3 |
The literature search is sufficiently rigorous to identify all the relevant studies. |
Well covered Adequately addressed Poorly addressed |
Not addressed Not reported Not applicable |
|
1.4 |
Study quality is assessed and taken into account. |
Well covered Adequately addressed Poorly addressed |
Not addressed Not reported Not applicable |
|
1.5 |
There are enough similarities between the studies selected to make combining them reasonable. |
Well covered Adequately addressed Poorly addressed |
Not addressed Not reported Not applicable |
|
| Section 2: Overall assessment of the study |
||||
2.1 |
How well was the study done to minimise bias? Code ++, +, or - |
|||
2.2 |
If coded as +, or - what is the likely direction in which bias might affect the study results? |
|||
| Section 3: Description of the study - Please
print answers clearly
|
||||
3.1 |
What types of study are included in the review? (Highlight all that apply) |
RCT / CCT / Cohort / Case-control / Other
|
||
3.2 |
How does this review help to answer your key question? Summarise the main conclusions of the review and how it relates to the relevant key question. Comment on any particular strengths or weaknesses of the review as a source of evidence for a guideline produced for the NHS in Scotland. |
|||