Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews

~~TOC~~

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?

1. Review Question

Is it clearly defined, including PICO elements where appropriate?

2. Inclusion Criteria

Are population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes defined and justified?

3. Search Strategy

Describe adequacy, transparency, and reproducibility of the search strategy.

4. Sources & Resources

Databases, grey literature, hand-searching? Were they comprehensive?

5. Appraisal Criteria

Were tools/methods to assess study quality valid and appropriate?

6. Independent Appraisal

Were two or more reviewers involved independently? Describe any consensus method.

7. Data Extraction Accuracy

Were processes in place to ensure data extraction reliability?

8. Synthesis Methods

Narrative/meta-analysis? Were methods appropriate to the data types?

9. Publication Bias

Was it assessed (e.g., funnel plots, Egger’s test)?

10. Policy/Practice Recommendations

Were they logically supported by the findings?

11. Research Recommendations

Were gaps identified and relevant proposals for future research made?

☐ Include
☐ Exclude
☐ Seek further info

Rationale:

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

[ ] 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)