The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

被引:3578
作者
Hong, Quan Nha [1 ,2 ]
Fabregues, Sergi [3 ]
Bartlett, Gillian [1 ]
Boardman, Felicity [4 ]
Cargo, Margaret [5 ]
Dagenais, Pierre [6 ]
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre [7 ]
Griffiths, Frances [4 ]
Nicolau, Belinda [8 ]
O'Cathain, Alicia [9 ]
Rousseau, Marie-Claude [10 ]
Vedel, Isabelle [1 ]
Pluye, Pierre [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Dept Family Med, 5858 Chemin Cote des Neiges,Suite 300, Montreal, PQ H3S 1Z1, Canada
[2] Quebec SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Method Dev Platform, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Oberta Catalunya, Dept Psychol & Educ, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Univ Warwick, Warwick Med Sch, Div Hlth Sci, Coventry, W Midlands, England
[5] Univ Canberra, Hlth Res Inst, Canberra, ACT, Australia
[6] Univ Sherbrooke, Fac Med & Sci Sante, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[7] Univ Laval, Fac Sci Infirmieres, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[8] McGill Univ, Div Oral Hlth & Soc Res, Fac Dent, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[9] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Med Care Res Unit, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[10] INRS Inst Armand Frappier Res Ctr, Laval, PQ, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Quality; mixed studies review; mixed methods review; systematic review; critical appraisal tool;
D O I
10.3233/EFI-180221
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
INTRODUCTION: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhancements made to the MMAT. DEVELOPMENT: The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. TOOL DESCRIPTION: The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. CONCLUSION: The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 291
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Bai A, 2012, QUALITY ASSESSMENT T
  • [2] Burls A., 2009, WHAT IS CRITICAL APP, V2nd
  • [3] Should We Exclude Inadequately Reported Studies From Qualitative Systematic Reviews? An Evaluation of Sensitivity Analyses in Two Case Study Reviews
    Carroll, Christopher
    Booth, Andrew
    Lloyd-Jones, Myfanwy
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2012, 22 (10) : 1425 - 1434
  • [4] Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain
    Colle, F
    Rannou, F
    Revel, M
    Fermanian, J
    Poiraudeau, S
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2002, 83 (12): : 1745 - 1752
  • [5] A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed
    Crowe, Michael
    Sheppard, Lorraine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (01) : 79 - 89
  • [6] No “gold standard” critical appraisal tool for allied health research: Which is the best critical appraisal tool to evaluate the quality of allied health research?
    Glenny A.-M.
    [J]. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2005, 6 (4) : 100 - 101
  • [7] Harden A., 2012, INTRO SYSTEMATIC REV, P153
  • [8] Hartling L, 2010, DEVELOPING TESTING T
  • [9] Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy
    Hartling, Lisa
    Bond, Kenneth
    Santaguida, P. Lina
    Viswanathan, Meera
    Dryden, Donna M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (08) : 861 - 871
  • [10] Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned
    Herbison, Peter
    Hay-Smith, Jean
    Gillespie, William J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (12) : 1249 - 1256