Open Access Repository

Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal

Schlosser, RW, Wendt, O and Sigafoos, J 2007 , 'Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal' , Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention, vol. 1, no. 3 , pp. 138-150 , doi:

[img] PDF
4467.pdf | Request a copy
Full text restricted
Available under University of Tasmania Standard License.


Systematic reviews can be a tremendous asset in the implementation of evidence-based practice, because they minimize
some of the most-documented barriers to evidence-based practice. For example, by reading systematic reviews, clinicians
may save time that would otherwise be dedicated to locating and appraising individual studies. Further, clinicians can rely
on someone else’s reviewing expertise, which reduces the knowledge and skill burden otherwise imposed on them.
However, empirical studies have repeatedly demonstrated that there is great variability in the quality of systematic reviews.
Thus, in order to harness their potential, it is imperative that clinicians distinguish high-quality systematic reviews from those
of low quality. In this paper, we aim to discuss considerations for appraising the quality of systematic reviews.

Item Type: Article
Authors/Creators:Schlosser, RW and Wendt, O and Sigafoos, J
Journal or Publication Title: Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Publisher: Informa Healthcare
ISSN: 1748-9539
DOI / ID Number:
Additional Information:

The definitive version is available online at

Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page