In Search of Evidence

Chapter 6
Table 3: Assessment of a systematic review*
1. Is the review based on an explicit question?
2. Is the search systematic and reproducible, and has publication bias
been prevented as far as possible?
3. Is the selection of studies systematic and reproducible?
4. Has the methodological quality of the studies been adequately
assessed?
5. Is there an adequate description of how data extraction took place, and
are the key features of the original studies described?
6. Has heterogeneity been adequately addressed?
Yes
No/
Unclear
7. Has the meta-analysis been conducted correctly?
8. Are the conclusions valid and applicable?
*Based on Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, G. H. 1991. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology; 44(11):1271-8.
Rigorous assessment: taking the study of high-performance
organizations as an example
De Waal's study of high-performance organizations is used to illustrate the
quality assessment of a systematic review. This study was published as a book in
2012: “What Makes a High Performance Organization: Five Factors of
Competitive Advantage that Apply Worldwide” (De Waal, 2012). The study was
chosen as an example mainly because of the media attention generated in
response to the outcome. There was, for example, a great deal of publicity for
this study and the ensuing book, and a number of well-known managers and
organizations underlined the importance of the outcome for management
practice 3 . The original study includes a review study and meta-analysis of 91
studies. In appraising the quality, use was made of the information in the book,
the original study, an online working paper, and information source provided by
the author himself (De Waal, 2006a, 2006b).
3
For an overview of the managers and organizations promoting the outcome, please visit
www.hpocenter.com