Table 9.

Comparing the relevance of JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute), CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) and ETQS (Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies) for appraising components specific to systematic case studies

Systematic case study components	JBI Evaluation Criteria	CASP Evaluation Criteria	ETQS Evaluation Criteria
Methodological components
Case context and method	Congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives	Methodological screening questions: Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?	No assessment criteria for the suitability of the case study method
Research participants (description of patients, therapists, researchers)	Cultural and theoretical context of the researcher; researcher’s impact on the research (and vice versa); adequate patient representation	No assessment criteria for the description of researchers and data analysts	How do the authors locate the study within the existing knowledge base? What role does the researcher adopt within the setting? Are the researcher’s own position, assumptions, and possible biases outlined?
Research procedure (data collection and analysis methods)	Congruity between the research methodology and the analysis of data and interpretation of results	Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? Were the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?	What theoretical framework guides or informs the study? What data collection methods are used to obtain and record data? How were data analysed?
Clinical components
Case introduction	Clear description of patient demographics and current clinical condition	No assessment criteria for case description	What are the key characteristics of the sample (events, persons, times and settings)?
Assessment of the client’s problems, goals, strengths, and history (includes many data sources and methods, such as diagnostic tools and questionnaires)	Participants and their voices are clearly represented No assessment criteria for patient’s clinical assessment or the use of other methods and data sources No assessment criteria for the formulation and planning of the treatment	No assessment criteria for patient’s clinical assessment or the use of other methods and data sources	Within what geographical and care setting is the study carried out? Is sufficient detail given about the setting? No assessment criteria for patient’s clinical assessment or the use of other methods and data sources
Course of therapy and treatment plan	Clear description of patient’s history, including a timeline of relevant events	No assessment criteria for course of treatment or progress	Over what time period is the study conducted? No assessment criteria for therapeutic progress
Theoretical components
Clinical decision-making (includes assessment of clinical outcomes and theoretical findings)	Research conclusions flow from the analysis and interpretation of the data	Is there a clear statement of findings? (e.g. triangulation, respondent validation, more than one analyst)	Is there sufficient breadth (e.g. contrast of two or more perspective) and depth (e.g. insight into a single perspective)? What are the implications for policy and practice?
Research limitations	No assessment criteria for research limitations	No assessment criteria for research limitations	Is there evidence of reflexivity? Is adequate evidence provided to support the analysis (validity and reliability)?
Transferability of findings	No assessment criteria for transferability of findings	How valuable is the research? Consider the findings in relation to current practice or policy, or relevant research-based literature and how findings can be transferred to other populations or other ways in which the research may be used	To what setting and population are the study findings generalizable?