Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews ======

~~TOC~~

===== Citation Details =====
  * **Author(s):** 
  * **Year:** 
  * **Title:** 
  * **Journal:** 
  * **DOI or URL:** 

===== Checklist Summary =====
| Criteria | Yes | No | Unclear | Comments |
|---------|-----|----|---------|----------|
| 1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? |       |    |         |          |
| 2. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? |       |    |         |          |
| 3. Was the search strategy appropriate? |       |    |         |          |
| 4. Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate? |       |    |         |          |
| 5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate? |       |    |         |          |
| 6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently? |       |    |         |          |
| 7. Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction? |       |    |         |          |
| 8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? |       |    |         |          |
| 9. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? |       |    |         |          |
| 10. Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data? |       |    |         |          |
| 11. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate? |       |    |         |          |

===== Detailed Notes =====

<WRAP accordion>
<WRAP box>
=== 1. Review Question ===
Is it clearly defined, including PICO elements where appropriate?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 2. Inclusion Criteria ===
Are population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes defined and justified?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 3. Search Strategy ===
Describe adequacy, transparency, and reproducibility of the search strategy.
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 4. Sources & Resources ===
Databases, grey literature, hand-searching? Were they comprehensive?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 5. Appraisal Criteria ===
Were tools/methods to assess study quality valid and appropriate?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 6. Independent Appraisal ===
Were two or more reviewers involved independently? Describe any consensus method.
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 7. Data Extraction Accuracy ===
Were processes in place to ensure data extraction reliability?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 8. Synthesis Methods ===
Narrative/meta-analysis? Were methods appropriate to the data types?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 9. Publication Bias ===
Was it assessed (e.g., funnel plots, Egger’s test)?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 10. Policy/Practice Recommendations ===
Were they logically supported by the findings?
</WRAP>

<WRAP box>
=== 11. Research Recommendations ===
Were gaps identified and relevant proposals for future research made?
</WRAP>
</WRAP>

===== Overall Appraisal =====
  * ☐ Include
  * ☐ Exclude
  * ☐ Seek further info

  * **Rationale:** 

===== JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports =====

This checklist is designed to assess the methodological quality and reporting of individual **case reports**, following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.

===== Checklist Items =====

  - [ ] **1. Patient demographics:**  
    Were the patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described?

  - [ ] **2. Clinical timeline:**  
    Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline?

  - [ ] **3. Presentation details:**  
    Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described?

  - [ ] **4. Diagnostic methods:**  
    Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described?

  - [ ] **5. Interventions:**  
    Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described?

  - [ ] **6. Post-intervention outcomes:**  
    Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described?

  - [ ] **7. Adverse events:**  
    Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described?

  - [ ] **8. Lessons learned:**  
    Does the case report provide takeaway lessons or clinical insights?

----

**Scoring Recommendation:**  
You may consider a case report of **high quality** if most of the items (typically ≥6/8) are marked as adequately addressed.

**Source:** Joanna Briggs Institute – [https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools](https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools)