Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Research

  • Rocco CavaleriEmail author
  • Sameer Bhole
  • Amit Arora
Reference work entry


Critical appraisal skills are important for anyone wishing to make informed decisions or improve the quality of healthcare delivery. A good critical appraisal provides information regarding the believability and usefulness of a particular study. However, the appraisal process is often overlooked, and critically appraising quantitative research can be daunting for both researchers and clinicians. This chapter introduces the concept of critical appraisal and highlights its importance in evidence-based practice. Readers are then introduced to the most common quantitative study designs and key questions to ask when appraising each type of study. These studies include systematic reviews, experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials), and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies). This chapter also provides the tools most commonly used to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of quantitative studies. Overall, this chapter serves as a step-by-step guide to appraising quantitative research in healthcare settings.


Critical appraisal Quantitative research Methodological quality Reporting quality 


  1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318(7192):1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora A, Scott JA, Bhole S, Do L, Schwarz E, Blinkhorn AS. Early childhood feeding practices and dental caries in preschool children: a multi-centre birth cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, … Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavaleri R, Schabrun S, Te M, Chipchase L. Hand therapy versus corticosteroid injections in the treatment of de quervain’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(1):3–11. Scholar
  5. Centre for Evidence-based Management. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 20 Dec 2017, from
  6. Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Critical appraisal worksheets. 2017. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from
  7. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448–52. Scholar
  8. Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Casp checklists. 2017. Retrieved 5 Dec 2017, from
  9. Dawes M, Davies P, Gray A, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R. Evidence-based practice: a primer for health care professionals. London: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Research methods: reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenhalgh T, Donald A. Evidence-based health care workbook: understanding research for individual and group learning. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, Guyatt G, Bass E, Brill-Edwards P, … Gerstein H. Users’ guides to the medical literature: II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, … Jaeschke R. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4), 383–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Birger Hagen K. Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Is restricted randomisation necessary? BMJ. 2006;332(7556):1506–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. The cochrane collaboration. 2009. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from
  17. Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-based practice across the health professions. Chatswood: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffmann T, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, … Johnston M. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 2014;348: g1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. 2017. Retrieved 4 Dec 2017, from
  20. Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Mishra S, Patel S, Naik E, Kumar A. Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis. 2009;30(2):112–9. Scholar
  21. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1(1):2. Scholar
  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2017. Retrieved 17 Dec 2017, from
  25. Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro scale. 2017. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017, from
  26. Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: F.A. Davis Company/Publishers; 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Roberts C, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7203):185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, … Kristjansson E. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
  29. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, … Boutron I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.Google Scholar
  30. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, … Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.Google Scholar
  31. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, … Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Science and HealthWestern Sydney UniversityCampbelltownAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and HealthThe University of SydneySurry HillsAustralia
  3. 3.School of Science and HealthWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Discipline of Paediatrics and Child HealthSydney Medical SchoolSydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Oral Health ServicesSydney Local Health District and Sydney Dental Hospital, NSW HealthSydneyAustralia
  6. 6.COHORTE Research GroupIngham Institute of Applied Medical ResearchLiverpoolAustralia
  7. 7.Oral Health ServicesSydney Local Health District and Sydney Dental Hospital, NSW HealthSurry HillsAustralia

Personalised recommendations