Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: reviews of research
Ian Needleman1, Jan Clarkson, Helen Worthington
1Unit of Periodontology, International Centre for Evidence-Based Oral Health, University College London Eastman Dental Institute, London, England. i.needleman@ucl.ac.uk
Background:
and overview. This article describes the different types of reviews of research that are available in the literature: systematic reviews and traditional reviews. Systematic reviews have become the reference standard for evidence to inform clinical practice. In this article, the authors set out guidance on appraising the quality and relevance of systematic reviews to help readers make decisions about their clinical practice.
Conclusions:
and practical implications. Systematic reviews are of variable quality, although evaluations of reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration generally are of the highest quality. An assessment tool described in this article appears currently to be the most useful tool to guide clinicians to assess systematic reviews and therefore to decide whether the evidence is appropriate to change practice.
Related Concept Videos
Lazarus's Cognitive Appraisal Theory
Primary Appraisal:...
Critical Thinking II
Patient-centered Care
Critical Thinking I
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
