Uploaded on Jul 27, 2020
The tool allows the editor to judge the quality of the manuscript and the readers to identify the relevance. It should be incorporated while authoring the narrative review articles. https://www.cognibrain.com/sanra-tool-for-assessing-narrative-review-articles/
SANRA Tool for Assessing Narrative Review Articles
SANRA:
Tool for
Assessing
Narrative
Review
Articles
Introduction
SANRA is a tool for improving the
quality of narrative articles. The
tool was developed in 2010 and
has been revised to make it
simpler. The tool allows the editor
to judge the quality of the
manuscript and the readers to
identify the relevance. It should be
incorporated while authoring the
narrative review articles.
Narrative Review Articles
Narrative reviews form an important
part of medical literature. In medical
literature, narrative reviews have
the largest share of text. There are
two types of literature reviews, i.e.
systematic reviews and narrative or
non-systematic reviews. While
various guidelines have been
proposed for systematic reviews,
there are no standard guidelines for
non-systematic or narrative
reviews.
Advantages of Narrative
Review Articles
Comprehensiveness: Narrative reviews
provide more detailed and
comprehensive information about a
particular topic. They also include the
debate and current lack of knowledge.
Avoid duplication: By including several
primary studies, the narrative reviews
avoid duplication of studies performed.
Guide future research: As they
provide information about the lack of
knowledge in a particular area, they act
as guiding light for future researches.
New medical intervention: Through
the analysis of primary studies, they
sometimes propose a new medical
intervention.
Assessing Narrative Review
Articles: SANRA
Although narrative review articles or
non-systematic reviews play an
important role in the dissemination
of medical information, they are
generally considered as non-
authentic and unreliable. This is
probably the reason that the non-
systematic reviews are placed lower
in the hierarchy of evidence-based
medicine relative to systematic
reviews.
The main aim of developing SANRA was
to help the editors to determine the
quality of narrative reviews, the readers
to evaluate what quality of review they
are reading, and to improve the authors
in writing the narrative review.
The scale was then revised into a 6-
item version. Each item has a score
from 0 to 2, 0 being the low standard
while 2 is a high standard score. 1 is
considered as the intermediate score.
The maximum score a narrative review
can achieve can be 12. The 6 items that
form the part of SANRA are:
1) Important to readers: This item
determines whether a proper
justification is given to prove the
importance of narrative reviews to
readers.
2) Aims of the narrative reviews: If
the aims of the review or questions are
formulated concretely, scores are given
to the article.
3) Comprehensive literature search
description: If the search strategy is
not provided in the article, a 0 score is
given.
4) Referencing: If the key statements
in the review are included without any
appropriate references, the score given
is 0, while for key statements with
references, score 2 is allotted.
5) Scientific reasoning: Scientific
reasoning is an important part of the
narrative review.
6) Appropriate presentation of
data: The author should present the
data completely and in the most
appropriate manner.
A field testing was carried out to
determine the internal consistency, item-
total correlation, feasibility, validity, and
reliability. All the three developers of
SANRA rated the 30 manuscripts without
systematic literature searches. These
manuscripts were submitted to
Deutsches Ärzteblatt in 2015. These
ratings were given blindly and
independently of each other. The SANRA
should be incorporated while authoring
and reviewing the narrative reviews,
which are widespread in the medical
literature.
REFERENCE
Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens
S. SANRA-a scale for the quality
assessment of narrative review
articles. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019; 4: 5
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I.
Seventy-five trials and eleven
systematic reviews a day: how will we
ever keep up? PLoS Med.
2010;7(9):e1000326.
Know more
E-mail:
[email protected]
Phone: 044-49595223
URL:
https://www.cognibrain.com/
Comments