Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Evidence-based Public HealthEffectiveness and efficiency$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Amanda Killoran and Mike P. Kelly

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199563623

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563623.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 20 October 2019

The process of systematic review of public health evidence: quality criteria and standards

The process of systematic review of public health evidence: quality criteria and standards

Chapter:
(p.327) Chapter 21 The process of systematic review of public health evidence: quality criteria and standards
Source:
Evidence-based Public Health
Author(s):

Mark Petticrew

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563623.003.021

Assessing ‘study quality’ is a key component of the systematic review process that is much contested. Systematic reviewers would argue that the purpose is to ensure that the final synthesis of evidence is based on the most robust studies; that is, those least susceptible to bias. A range of appraisal tools and checklists are often employed to ensure that attention is duly given to the main sources of bias, but to the non-initiated this approach often seems formulaic and narrowly focused, and risks privileging a few key aspects of internal validity over other important aspects of research, such as its utility and generalizability. Moreover, for critics, the process of quality assessment seems to reduce the task of reviewing evidence to a series of box-ticking exercises, as opposed to an appraisal of the usefulness of research for decision making purposes. The application of quality criteria becomes particularly difficult when reviewing public health evidence, because the range of types of evidence to be included is potentially wide. In this context, excluding studies on grounds of ‘validity’ or ‘quality’ alone may inadvertently introduce further biases. This chapter gives examples of this problem drawn from public health systematic reviews in the fields of tobacco control, transport, and physical activity. Despite such potential pitfalls, systematic reviews do need to include an assessment of the risk of bias posed by each study, without taking it to extremes. The chapter also describes some of the challenges.

Keywords:   study quality, public health evidence, quality assessment, systematic review process

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .