The
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews is a rigorous tool designed to assess the
methodological quality of systematic reviews, including those with
meta-analyses, qualitative syntheses, or mixed-methods designs. Unlike PRISMA (which focuses on reporting) or CASP (which offers a simpler approach), JBI provides a
detailed, domain-specific evaluation aligned with evidence-based healthcare standards.
JBI Checklist: Step-by-Step Guide
1. Understand the Structure
The JBI checklist consists of
11 questions (for quantitative reviews) or
10 questions (for qualitative reviews), covering:
- Review methodology
- Study inclusion criteria
- Search strategy
- Critical appraisal of included studies
- Data synthesis
Each question is answered with:
✅
Yes (Criterion met)
❌
No (Criterion not met)
❓
Unclear (Insufficient information)
?
Not applicable (If irrelevant to the review type)
2. Breakdown of Key Questions (Quantitative Reviews)
1. Review Question & Inclusion Criteria
- Q1. Is the review question clearly stated? (PICO/PCC framework recommended)
- Q2. Were inclusion criteria appropriate for the question?
2. Search Strategy & Study Selection
- Q3. Was the search strategy comprehensive? (Multiple databases, grey literature, no language restrictions)
- Q4. Were appropriate methods used for study selection? (Dual reviewers, minimized bias)
3. Critical Appraisal of Included Studies
- Q5. Was a standardized tool used to assess risk of bias? (e.g., Cochrane RoB, JBI’s own tools)
- Q6. Were appraisal results used appropriately in conclusions?
4. Data Extraction & Synthesis
- Q7. Was data extraction replicable? (Piloted forms, dual extractors)
- Q8. Were methods for combining studies justified? (Meta-analysis, narrative synthesis)
- Q9. Was heterogeneity assessed? (I² statistic, subgroup analysis)
- Q10. Were publication bias assessed? (Funnel plots, Egger’s test)
- Q11. Were conflicts of interest stated?
(For qualitative reviews, questions focus on congruity between methodology and research question, data interpretation, and researcher influence.)
3. How to Score & Interpret JBI
- No numeric scoring—assess overall rigor based on "Yes" responses.
- Higher "Yes" answers = Higher confidence in the review.
- Key red flags:
- ❌ No protocol registration (Q1)
- ❌ Single reviewer screening (Q4)
- ❌ No RoB assessment (Q5)
Example Assessment
| Question |
Response |
Comment |
| Q1 (Clear question) |
✅ Yes |
PICO well-defined. |
| Q3 (Comprehensive search) |
❌ No |
Only PubMed/EMBASE used. |
| Q5 (RoB assessment) |
✅ Yes |
Cochrane RoB 2.0 applied. |
| Overall Impression |
Moderate reliability |
Limited by search strategy. |
4. When to Use JBI?
✔
Appraising systematic reviews for clinical guidelines.
✔
Evaluating mixed-method or qualitative syntheses (where AMSTAR-2/RoBIS may not apply).
✔
Academic peer review (journals like
JBI Evidence Synthesis require it).
JBI vs. Other Tools
| Feature |
JBI |
AMSTAR-2 |
CASP |
| Focus |
Methodology rigor |
Quality confidence |
Quick appraisal |
| Best for |
Mixed-method/qualitative SRs |
Quantitative SRs |
Beginners |
| Depth |
High (11 items) |
Very High (16 items) |
Moderate (10 items) |
Strengths of JBI
✔
Flexible for
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods reviews.
✔
Explicitly aligns with evidence-based healthcare principles.
✔
Includes synthesis-specific questions (e.g., meta-analysis vs. thematic synthesis).
Limitations
✖
No overall score (like AMSTAR-2’s confidence ratings).
✖
Less commonly used than PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 in some fields.
Conclusion
The JBI checklist is a
robust, adaptable tool for assessing systematic reviews across diverse study designs. It’s particularly valuable for
mixed-method research or when
AMSTAR-2/RoBIS don’t fit.
Need the JBI checklist template or help applying it? Ask below! ?
