SYSTEMATIC REVIEW CRITICAL APPRAISAL WORKSHEET

You are to respond to each question completely using the article (cited once to establish which article you have selected and put in your reference list) and using appropriately cited external resources as needed (e.g., your text books).

What question did the systematic review address?

The question this review sought to address was the significance of the impact of IPC interventions on the management of chronic patients compared to usual care.

Were important, relevant studies missed?

The study looked at studies in which Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on IPC interventions on chronicity management and their impact on clinical and process outcomes were conducted. The search and inclusion criteria included the PICO domain elements: (P) Chronic condition, (I) IPC, (C) usual care and (O)impact on clinical outcomes, process outcomes and patients reported outcomes. The researchers defined their keywords as chronic disease, chronic condition, chronic illness, interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional team, Outcome and Process Assessment, effect and their synonymous through Boolean operators AND and OR (Pascucci et al., 2021). Exclusion criteria were also defined in the search as: Psychiatric disorders, palliative care and chronic functional pain (Pascucci et al., 2021). No language restrictions were used for the search, and the electronic databases, EMBASE, ISIWeb of Knowledge, MEDLINE, from their inception to April 2020, were used.

This paper: Yes x No Unclear

Rationale for your response:

Systematic reviews should clearly state the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to guide their search for research to ensure that only relevant studies are included in the review. This study does that, as shown above.

Were the criteria used to select articles for inclusion appropriate?

Yes, the criteria used to select articles for inclusion were appropriate. The criteria included the relevance of the article to the research topic, the quality of the research, and whether or not the article was peer reviewed. These criteria are important for ensuring that only high-quality, relevant research is included in a systematic review.

This paper: Yes x No Unclear

Rationale for your response:

The authors used a systematic approach that identified all relevant studies from the literature and then applied specific criteria to filter out lower quality studies. This approach ensured that only the most relevant and reliable studies were included, providing a comprehensive review of the available evidence. Additionally, they employed explicit criteria to evaluate study quality, which further increased the trustworthiness of their findings.

Were the included studies sufficiently valid for the type of question asked?

Yes, the included studies provided valid data and...…specificity about the frequency of team meetings, the mode of team communication (e.g. in person team meetings, how often teams consulted with each other, other types of contact, etc.) as well as the roles and responsibilities of the team members and how having this data would be useful in supporting any future decision related to staffing, reimbursement or quality assurance (Pascucci et al., 2021, p. 199).

What is the overall quality of the evidence?

Were prevailing study design, size, and conduct reflected in a summary of the quality of evidence (this is found in the discussion section of the manuscript)?

High-quality evidence typically comes from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Lower-quality evidence may come from observational studies, case studies, or expert opinion. Pascucci et al. (2021) used meta-analysis and note that meta-analyses with a rigorous and analytically approach are essential tools to be adopted in evidence-based medicine (p. 200).

This paper: Yes x No Unclear

Comment:

The discussion included information about factors such as sample size, study design, methodologies employed, and any potential sources of bias or confounding variables that were considered during the study. By reviewing this summary, the reader could determine how well the studies reviewed were designed and conducted and assess how reliable the…