Table 4 Overview of checklists for use by review authors
From: Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability
Author | Type of publication | Aim of checklist | Accompanying guidance on how to use the checklist | Stage to be used in systematic review process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Atkins 2010 [20] | Part of a methods guide for effectiveness reviews | To outline steps in “assessing and reporting applicability.” | 1. Determine the most important factors that may affect applicability [criteria from corresponding checklist included in content analysis here] 2. Systematically abstract and report key characteristics that may affect applicability in evidence tables, highlight any effectiveness studies 3. Make and report judgments about major limitations to applicability of individual studies 4. Consider and summarize the applicability of a body of evidence | Throughout the systematic review process |
Gruen 2005 [43] | Letter to the editor | “Generalizability [in a systematic review] can be tackled by considering the following questions…” | Not described | Not described |
Schunemann 2013 [11] | Journal article | “to offer guidance to review authors tackling the challenge of judging the directness of evidence about review questions assembled in a systematic review[…]” This framework is intended to support and guide use of non-randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. | “First, review authors should specify the PICO healthcare question that they are interested in addressing, defining the elements of the question in sufficient detail to facilitate judgments about directness. They can use the items in the subdomains and domains of Table 1 to specify their question as narrowly as necessary and as broadly as acceptable.…Second review authors should judge the directness of the evidence that they obtain on the basis of the factors in Table 1 [criteria included in content analysis in this systematic mapping]” | When developing the review question, and when applying GRADE to the review findings. |
Taylor 2007 [50] | Journal article | “[…] the aim was to develop an approach that encompassed research into processes as well as studies of interventions, and that embraced a wider range of aspects of validity than the traditional Hierarchy of Evidence. Rather than seeking one hierarchy to cover all aspects, we sought to begin to develop a range of tools to appraise specific aspects of research design and methods.” Tools to appraise generalizability is one of five tools included in the range of tools described above. | The Tools to appraise generalizability is part of a set of five scales to appraise studies included in a systematic review. Studies were scored on each scale and the score was used to determine inclusion/exclusion in the review. | After studies have been identified that meet inclusion criteria. |