{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T01:39:20Z","timestamp":1792546760400,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":60,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,25]],"date-time":"2026-07-25T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1784937600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1792540800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":88,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Syst Rev"],"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>\n \n Background<\/jats:title>\n Evaluating the methodological quality of primary studies is a crucial aspect of evidence syntheses, such as rapid reviews. Rapid reviews often include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSIs) requiring multiple design-specific quality assessment tools. This can complicate workflows and reduce efficiency. Unified tools, designed to assess methodological quality across diverse study designs, may offer a more consistent and streamlined approach. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively identify and describe unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n The review followed JBI scoping review methodology and was reported in line with PRISMA-ScR guidance. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO) from 1998 to 2024, alongside grey literature searches, citation tracking, targeted website searches, and consultation with experts in evidence synthesis. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers.<\/jats:p>\n A tool was defined as any structured instrument developed to support users in assessing methodological quality.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n \n A total of 55 publications were included, identifying 29 unique unified tools. These were categorised by structure: scales (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200914), checklists with an additional summary judgement (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20097), simple checklists (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20095), domain-based tools (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20092), and other tools (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20091). All tools were designed to assess both RCTs and NRSIs, with many also applicable to additional study designs, including descriptive studies (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200915), case reports or series (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20099), qualitative research (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20097), and systematic reviews (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u20093). Unified tools were developed using a mixture of approaches including literature reviewing (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200925), expert consensus (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200920), and stakeholder consultations (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200917) and pilot testing (\n n<\/jats:italic>\n \u2009=\u200917). Evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted to varying levels across different domains of validity and reliability.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n This review identified a diverse set of unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs. However, variation in tool structure, the availability of accompanying guidance, and the limited evaluation of psychometric properties, particularly inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, indicate potential issues for adoption in rapid reviews. Unified tools need further refinement and validation to be embedded in the rapid review process.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Systematic review registration<\/jats:title>\n \n https:\/\/osf.io\/nyteu\/<\/jats:ext-link>\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,25]],"date-time":"2026-07-25T01:25:01Z","timestamp":1784942701000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"15","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1885-9297","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Deborah","family":"Edwards","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Emily C.","family":"Clark","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Judit","family":"Csontos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maureen","family":"Dobbins","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Elizabeth","family":"Gillen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Juliet","family":"Hounsome","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sarah E.","family":"Neil-Sztramko","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ruth","family":"Lewis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mala","family":"Mann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Gillian","family":"Prue","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,25]]},"reference":[{"key":"3270_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2024 Edition. Adelaide; 2024.","DOI":"10.46658\/JBIMES-24-01"},{"key":"3270_CR2","unstructured":"Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.5, 2024. 2024. Available at: www.training.cochrane.org\/handbook. Accessed: 26 Mar 2025."},{"issue":"2","key":"3270_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0017242","volume":"6","author":"L Hartling","year":"2011","unstructured":"Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden DM, Rowe BH. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(2):e17242.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"3270_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"b4012","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.b4012","volume":"339","author":"L Hartling","year":"2009","unstructured":"Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"3270_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"287","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019","volume":"139","author":"B Nussbaumer-Streit","year":"2021","unstructured":"Nussbaumer-Streit B, Ellen M, Klerings I, Sfetcu R, Riva N, Mahmic-Kaknjo M, et al. Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;139:287\u201396.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"3270_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.11124\/JBIES-22-00434","author":"JC Stone","year":"2023","unstructured":"Stone JC, Barker TH, Aromataris E, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Sears K, Klugar M, et al. From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.11124\/JBIES-22-00434.","journal-title":"JBI Evid Synth"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-023-02219-z","volume":"12","author":"D Duval","year":"2023","unstructured":"Duval D, Pearce-Smith N, Palmer JC, Sarfo-Annin JK, Rudd P, Clark R. Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC). Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):55.","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.1002\/jrsm.1102","volume":"5","author":"C Robertson","year":"2014","unstructured":"Robertson C, Ramsay C, Gurung T, Mowatt G, Pickard R, Sharma P. Practicalities of using a modified version of the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool for randomised and non-randomised study designs applied in a health technology assessment setting. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(3):200\u201311.","journal-title":"Res Synth Methods"},{"key":"3270_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj-2023-076335","volume":"384","author":"C Garritty","year":"2024","unstructured":"Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024;384:e076335.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"79","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008","volume":"64","author":"M Crowe","year":"2011","unstructured":"Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):79\u201389.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12961-025-01297-w","volume":"23","author":"R Lewis","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lewis R, Cooper A, Jarrom D, Mann M, Law R-J, Edwards D, et al. A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre 2021\u20132023. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;23(1):36.","journal-title":"Health Res Policy Syst"},{"key":"3270_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"121","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2018.10.003","volume":"106","author":"RC Robson","year":"2019","unstructured":"Robson RC, Pham B, Hwee J, Thomas SM, Rios P, Page MJ, et al. Few studies exist examining methods for selecting studies, abstracting data, and appraising quality in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:121\u201335.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2020-043961","volume":"11","author":"E D'Andrea","year":"2021","unstructured":"D\u2019Andrea E, Vinals L, Patorno E, Franklin JM, Bennett D, Largent JA, et al. How well can we assess the validity of non-randomised studies of medications? A systematic review of assessment tools. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e043961.","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"2","key":"3270_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2023-075173","volume":"14","author":"L Jiu","year":"2024","unstructured":"Jiu L, Hartog M, Wang J, Vreman RA, Klungel OH, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, et al. Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis. BMJ Open. 2024;14(2):e075173.","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"44","DOI":"10.1111\/jep.12889","volume":"25","author":"JM Quigley","year":"2019","unstructured":"Quigley JM, Thompson JC, Halfpenny NJ, Scott DA. Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies-a review of recommended and commonly used tools. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(1):44\u201352.","journal-title":"J Eval Clin Pract"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"62","DOI":"10.1016\/0197-2456(94)00031-W","volume":"16","author":"D Moher","year":"1995","unstructured":"Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16(1):62\u201373.","journal-title":"Control Clin Trials"},{"issue":"2","key":"3270_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"156","DOI":"10.2522\/ptj.20070147","volume":"88","author":"SA Olivo","year":"2008","unstructured":"Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):156\u201375.","journal-title":"Phys Ther"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"666","DOI":"10.1093\/ije\/dym018","volume":"36","author":"S Sanderson","year":"2007","unstructured":"Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666\u201376.","journal-title":"Int J Epidemiol"},{"issue":"9","key":"3270_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1573","DOI":"10.1007\/s00296-023-05354-x","volume":"43","author":"T Gebrye","year":"2023","unstructured":"Gebrye T, Fatoye F, Mbada C, Hakimi Z. A scoping review on quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis of real-world studies. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43(9):1573\u201381.","journal-title":"Rheumatol Int"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"472","DOI":"10.11124\/JBIES-23-00316","volume":"22","author":"S Hasanoff","year":"2024","unstructured":"Hasanoff S, Pollock D, Barker TH, Munn Z. Tools to assess the risk of bias of evidence syntheses: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2024;22(3):472\u201380.","journal-title":"JBI Evid Synth"},{"issue":"4","key":"3270_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1098","DOI":"10.11124\/JBIES-20-00570","volume":"20","author":"D Pollock","year":"2022","unstructured":"Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, McInerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, et al. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(4):1098\u2013105.","journal-title":"JBI Evidence Synthesis"},{"issue":"10","key":"3270_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2119","DOI":"10.11124\/JBIES-20-00167","volume":"18","author":"MDJ Peters","year":"2020","unstructured":"Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119\u201326.","journal-title":"JBI Evid Synth"},{"issue":"7","key":"3270_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.7326\/M18-0850","volume":"169","author":"AC Tricco","year":"2018","unstructured":"Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O\u2019Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467\u201373.","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"issue":"6","key":"3270_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"377","DOI":"10.1136\/jech.52.6.377","volume":"52","author":"SH Downs","year":"1998","unstructured":"Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377\u201384.","journal-title":"J Epidemiol Community Health"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-019703","volume":"8","author":"MJ Page","year":"2018","unstructured":"Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Higgins JPT. Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019703.","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"3270_CR26","unstructured":"Public Health Agency of Canada. Infection prevention and control guidelines critical appraisal tool kit. Ottawa, Canada. 2024. Available at: https:\/\/publications.gc.ca\/collections\/collection_2014\/aspc-phac\/HP40-119-2014-eng.pdf Accessed: 22 Oct 2024."},{"issue":"34","key":"3270_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.3310\/hta4340","volume":"4","author":"RR MacLehose","year":"2000","unstructured":"MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1\u2013154.","journal-title":"Health Technol Assess"},{"issue":"7","key":"3270_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E120","DOI":"10.1503\/cmaj.150901","volume":"188","author":"MH Trac","year":"2016","unstructured":"Trac MH, McArthur E, Jandoc R, Dixon SN, Nash DM, Hackam DG, et al. Macrolide antibiotics and the risk of ventricular arrhythmia in older adults. CMAJ. 2016;188(7):E120-e129.","journal-title":"CMAJ"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"176","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x","volume":"1","author":"BH Thomas","year":"2004","unstructured":"Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176\u201384.","journal-title":"Worldviews Evid Based Nurs"},{"key":"3270_CR30","unstructured":"Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care. EPOC Resources for review authors. 2017. Available at: https:\/\/epoc.cochrane.org\/resources\/epoc-resources-review-authors Accessed: 27 Mar 2025."},{"key":"3270_CR31","unstructured":"NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). UK. 2024. Available at: www.nice.org\/process\/pmg4 Accessed 7 Jan 2025."},{"issue":"2","key":"3270_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.1136\/ebm.11.2.35","volume":"11","author":"R Jackson","year":"2006","unstructured":"Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med. 2006;11(2):35\u20138.","journal-title":"Evid Based Med"},{"key":"3270_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Stone JC. A unifi ed framework for bias assessment of primary analytic research in evidence synthesis [doctoral thesis]. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University; 2022. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25911\/P42B-0M73.","DOI":"10.25911\/P42B-0M73"},{"key":"3270_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3389\/fpsyg.2023.1217661","volume":"14","author":"S Chacon-Moscoso","year":"2023","unstructured":"Chacon-Moscoso S, Sanduvete-Chaves S, Lozano-Lozano JA, Holgado-Tello FP. The Methodological Quality Scale (MQS) for intervention programs: validity evidence. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1217661.","journal-title":"Front Psychol"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"297","DOI":"10.1111\/1460-6984.12007","volume":"48","author":"E Murray","year":"2013","unstructured":"Murray E, Power E, Togher L, McCabe P, Munro N, Smith K. The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro-P scale. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013;48(3):297\u2013306.","journal-title":"Int J Lang Commun Disord"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"126","DOI":"10.1002\/mpr.108","volume":"10","author":"J Moncrieff","year":"2001","unstructured":"Moncrieff J, Churchill R, Drummond C, McGuire H. Development of a quality assessment instrument for trials of treatments for depression and neurosis. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2001;10(3):126\u201333.","journal-title":"Int J Methods Psychiatr Res"},{"key":"3270_CR37","unstructured":"Specialist Unit for Review Evidence. Questions to assist with the critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials and other experimental studies. Cardiff, UK. 2018. Available at: https:\/\/www.cardiff.ac.uk\/__data\/assets\/pdf_file\/0005\/1142969\/SURE-CA-form-for-RCTs-and-other-experimental-studies_2018.pdf Accessed: 7 Jan 2025"},{"key":"3270_CR38","unstructured":"Crowe M. Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) User Guide Version 1.4. Australia. 2013. Available at: https:\/\/conchra.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/CCAT-user-guide-v1.4.pdf"},{"key":"3270_CR39","volume-title":"Critical review form - quantitative studies","author":"M Law","year":"1998","unstructured":"Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, Letts L, Bosch J, Westmorland M. Critical review form - quantitative studies. Canada University; 1998."},{"issue":"6","key":"3270_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"920","DOI":"10.1080\/00140130701237667","volume":"50","author":"AM Genaidy","year":"2007","unstructured":"Genaidy AM, Lemasters GK, Lockey J, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, et al. An epidemiological appraisal instrument - a tool for evaluation of epidemiological studies. Ergonomics. 2007;50(6):920\u201360.","journal-title":"Ergonomics"},{"issue":"3","key":"3270_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"387","DOI":"10.1108\/07378830610692154","volume":"24","author":"L Glynn","year":"2006","unstructured":"Glynn L. A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Libr Hi Tech. 2006;24(3):387\u201399.","journal-title":"Libr Hi Tech"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-018-0925-0","volume":"8","author":"CE Kennedy","year":"2019","unstructured":"Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Armstrong KA, Denison JA, Yeh PT, O\u2019Reilly KR, et al. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):3.","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"key":"3270_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1016\/j.puhe.2015.10.012","volume":"133","author":"W Zingg","year":"2016","unstructured":"Zingg W, Castro-Sanchez E, Secci FV, Edwards R, Drumright LN, Sevdalis N, et al. Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS). Public Health. 2016;133:19\u201337.","journal-title":"Public Health"},{"issue":"8","key":"3270_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1067","DOI":"10.1097\/ACM.0000000000000786","volume":"90","author":"DA Cook","year":"2015","unstructured":"Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1067\u201376.","journal-title":"Acad Med"},{"key":"3270_CR45","unstructured":"Rosella LC, Pach B, Morgan S, Bowman C. Meta-tool for quality appraisal of public health evidence. PHO MetaQAT 1.0. Toronto, Canada. 2015. Available at: https:\/\/www.publichealthontario.ca\/-\/media\/documents\/m\/2016\/metaqat.pdf?la=en Accessed: 27 Mar 2025."},{"issue":"4","key":"3270_CR46","first-page":"285","volume":"34","author":"QN Hong","year":"2018","unstructured":"Hong QN, F\u00e0bregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34(4):285\u201391.","journal-title":"Educ Inf"},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"63","DOI":"10.1186\/s12909-023-04033-6","volume":"23","author":"M Al Asmri","year":"2023","unstructured":"Al Asmri M, Haque MS, Parle J. A modified medical education research study quality instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):63.","journal-title":"BMC Med Educ"},{"key":"3270_CR48","unstructured":"National Toxicology Program: OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. In. New York, USA: Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), U.S Department of Health and Human Services. 2015. Available at: https:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/ntp\/ohat\/pubs\/riskofbiastool_508.pdf Accessed: 7 Jan 2025."},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"92","DOI":"10.1016\/j.puhe.2007.04.012","volume":"122","author":"RF Heller","year":"2008","unstructured":"Heller RF, Verma A, Gemmell I, Harrison R, Hart J, Edwards R. Critical appraisal for public health: a new checklist. Public Health. 2008;122(1):92\u20138.","journal-title":"Public Health"},{"issue":"4","key":"3270_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"746","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x","volume":"18","author":"R Sirriyeh","year":"2012","unstructured":"Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Armitage G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(4):746\u201352.","journal-title":"J Eval Clin Pract"},{"key":"3270_CR51","unstructured":"Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Evidence analysis manual: steps in the academy evidence analysis process. Chicago, IL. 2022. Available at: https:\/\/www.andeal.org\/vault\/2440\/web\/files\/EAL\/EAL%20Manual%20and%20Forms\/EA_Manual_2022Nov.pdf Accessed: 20 Oct 2024."},{"issue":"1","key":"3270_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"144","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-021-06122-y","volume":"21","author":"R Harrison","year":"2021","unstructured":"Harrison R, Jones B, Gardner P, Lawton R. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):144.","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res"},{"key":"3270_CR53","unstructured":"Kmet LM, Lee RC, Cook LS: Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Edmonton, Canada. 2004. Available at: https:\/\/era.library.ualberta.ca\/items\/48b9b989-c221-4df6-9e35-af782082280e Accessed: 22 Oct 2024."},{"key":"3270_CR54","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wang Z K T, Allman-Farinelli M, Armstrong B, Askie L, Ghersi D, McKenzie J, Norris S, Page M, Rooney A et al. A systematic review: Tools for assessing methodological quality of human observational studies. Canberra, Australia. 2019. Available at: https:\/\/nhmrc.gov.au\/guidelinesforguidelines\/develop\/assessing-risk-bias. Accessed: 22 Jul 2025.","DOI":"10.31222\/osf.io\/pnqmy"},{"issue":"6","key":"3270_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"418","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjebm-2022-112185","volume":"28","author":"B Nussbaumer-Streit","year":"2023","unstructured":"Nussbaumer-Streit B, Sommer I, Hamel C, Devane D, Noel-Storr A, Puljak L, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2023;28(6):418\u201323.","journal-title":"BMJ Evid-Based Med"},{"key":"3270_CR56","unstructured":"LATITUDES network: Key tool criteria (October 2025). 2025. Available at: https:\/\/www.latitudes-network.org\/change-to-key-tool-criteria\/ Accessed: 29 Apr 2026."},{"key":"3270_CR57","unstructured":"LATITUDES network: LATITUDES network, validity assessment tools for evidence synthesis: your one-stop-shop. 2026. Available at: https:\/\/www.latitudes-network.org\/ Accessed: 29 Apr 2026."},{"key":"3270_CR58","unstructured":"LATITUDES network: Selection criteria. 2026. Available at: https:\/\/www.latitudes-network.org\/library\/selection-criteria\/ Accessed: 29 Apr 2026."},{"issue":"9","key":"3270_CR59","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0138237","volume":"10","author":"NR Haddaway","year":"2015","unstructured":"Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9):e0138237.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"3270_CR60","unstructured":"Edwards D: SWAR 41: Evaluating the usability of unified tools for critical appraisal in rapid reviews of the effects of interventions. Belfast, Ireland: Queens University; 2024. Available at: https:\/\/www.qub.ac.uk\/sites\/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch\/FileStore\/SWARFileStore\/SWAR41%20Deborah%20Edwards%20(2024%20SEP%2023%202242).pdf Accessed: 29 Apr 2026."}],"container-title":["Systematic Reviews"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T01:36:00Z","timestamp":1792546560000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,25]]},"references-count":60,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["3270"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13643-026-03270-2","relation":{},"ISSN":["2046-4053"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2046-4053","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,25]]},"assertion":[{"value":"25 August 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"14 July 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"25 July 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent for publication","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}],"article-number":"278"}}