Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy

JBI has long held the view that an inclusive approach to the conceptualization of what counts as evidence is important to the evidence-based movement. JBI's approach for appraising textual evidence had encompassed all forms of text (narrative, opinion, and policy), with one general tool used to guide critical appraisal. The proliferation of textual evidence and increase in textual evidence reviews demonstrate the need to reconceptualize JBI's methodological approach to critically appraising textual evidence. The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence, especially in relation to the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text. Using an adapted Delphi approach, the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group convened over several rounds of meetings and discussions with international experts to reach consensus on the reconceptualization of critical appraisal tools for textual evidence sources. Strategies to effectively interrogate the legitimacy and authenticity of sources were found to be dependent upon the type of textual evidence under review. Therefore, 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text were developed. This paper provides an overview of the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools, highlighting the complex nature of textual evidence data sources.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JBI Evidence Synthesis
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-24-00293
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy

Alexa McArthur, Zoe Jordan, Brittany Barber, Lori E. Weeks et al.
6 citations
JBI Evidence Synthesis
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
12.64
article

Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy

Alexa McArthur, Zoe Jordan, Brittany Barber, Lori E. Weeks, Adam S. Cooper, Jitka Klugarová, Deborah Edwards, Yan Hu, Emily Gregg
article en
6 citations

Abstract

JBI has long held the view that an inclusive approach to the conceptualization of what counts as evidence is important to the evidence-based movement. JBI's approach for appraising textual evidence had encompassed all forms of text (narrative, opinion, and policy), with one general tool used to guide critical appraisal. The proliferation of textual evidence and increase in textual evidence reviews demonstrate the need to reconceptualize JBI's methodological approach to critically appraising textual evidence. The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence, especially in relation to the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text. Using an adapted Delphi approach, the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group convened over several rounds of meetings and discussions with international experts to reach consensus on the reconceptualization of critical appraisal tools for textual evidence sources. Strategies to effectively interrogate the legitimacy and authenticity of sources were found to be dependent upon the type of textual evidence under review. Therefore, 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text were developed. This paper provides an overview of the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools, highlighting the complex nature of textual evidence data sources.

JBI Evidence SynthesisVol. 23(5)
University of New Brunswick (CA), Dalhousie University (CA), Fudan University (CN), Saint John Regional Hospital (CA), University of California San Francisco Medical Center (US), Institute of Health Information and Statistics (CZ), The University of Adelaide (AU), Cardiff University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
12.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.