Skip to main content

Table 3 Critical appraisal results for systematic reviews using the joanna briggs institute critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and evidence synthesis

From: Patient flow in emergency departments: a comprehensive umbrella review of solutions and challenges across the health system

Study

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q

10

Q

11

% Yes

Overall quality

AM 2022 [13]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

U

U

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

64%

M

Austin 2020 [30]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Beckerleg 2020 [31]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Benabbas 2020 [55]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

U

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

73%

H

Berning 2020 [32]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Bittencourt 2020 [27]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

U

Yes

No

64%

M

Blodgett 2021 [56]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Boylen 2020 [57]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

H

Brambilla 2022 [58]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

55%

M

Burgess 2021 [33]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Cassarino 2019 [59]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Clark 2022 [34]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

55%

M

DeFreitas 2018 [7]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

91%

H

DiLaura 2021 [35]

U

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

55%

M

Franklin 2022 [60]

Yes

U

Yes

U

N/A

N/A

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

45%

L

Gonçalves-Bradley 2018 [61]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Gottlieb 2021 [62]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

82%

H

Gottlieb 2021[63]

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Grant 2020 [64]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

H

Grant 2020 [65]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

82%

H

Hesselink 2019 [66]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

H

Hong 2020 [36]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

55%

M

Hughes 2019 [67]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Jeyaraman 2022 [68]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

H

Jeyaraman 2021 [69]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

82%

H

Kirkland 2019 [70]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Leduc 2021 [71]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

82%

H

Malik 2018 [80]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

U

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

73%

H

Maninchedda 2023 [72]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

73%

H

Manning 2023 [29]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Morley 2018 [15]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Ortíz-Barrios 2020 [73]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

U

U

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

55%

M

Pearce 2023 [39]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

82%

H

Preston 2017 [74]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

64%

M

Rasouli 2019 [75]

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

73%

H

Sharma 2020 [76]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

U

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

73%

H

Shepherd 2022 [77]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

64%

M

Voaklander 2022 [78]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

91%

H

Zepeda-Lugo 2020 [79]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

U

Yes

Yes

82%

H

  1. Extracted papers were considered "low quality" if the results were < 50%, "moderate quality" if they fell between 50 and 69%, and paper(s) that received > 69% were considered "high quality"
  2. Q1: Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?
  3. Q2: Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?
  4. Q3: Was the search strategy appropriate?
  5. Q4: Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate?
  6. Q5: Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?
  7. Q6: Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?
  8. Q7: Were there methods to minimise errors in data extraction?
  9. Q8: Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?
  10. Q9: Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
  11. Q10: Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data?
  12. Q11: Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?
  13. Y Yes, N No, U Unclear, N/A Nonapplicable, L Low, M Moderate, H High
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us