University of Wisconsin–Madison

A Peer Review Feedback Form in Occupational Therapy 671

PROFESSOR KARLA AUSDERAU

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY 671, SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY I: EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

Reviewer’s Name:                                                                                                          Date:

Author’s Name:

PEER REVIEW FORM

1. State PICO Question.

2. Provide 2-3 specific strengths of the draft of their systematic review.

3. Provide 2-3 areas that need improvement in the draft of their systematic review and if relevant potential ways to improve.

4. Organization

a) Were the basic sections of the paper included? If not, what is missing?

b) Where strong topic sentences used in each paragraph?

c) Did they use subheadings appropriately to clarify the sections of the text and organize material? If not, recommendations for change.

d) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? If not, recommendations for change.

5. APA Format, Citations, Grammar, and Style

a) Did they cite sources appropriately? Where there places where they missed citations and where? Did they over cite any articles (meaning they used a citation too frequently)?

b) Where there any consistent grammar or spelling errors that need to be addressed?

c) Was the sentence structure clear? Did the paragraphs have a topic sentence? Did the paragraphs flow together in the varying sections?

6. Background Literature

a) Does the background describe what is currently known about the problem, and what is not yet known?

b) Provide relevant definitions and descriptions of the intervention and approach, as needed.

c) Discuss how this systematic review will contribute to our understanding or resolution of the problem addressed.

d) Does the information flow in a logical argument?

e) Was the relevance to occupation and participation presented

7. Is the PICO Question/objective of the systematic review clearly stated at the end of the background literature and before the methods section?

8. Methods.

a) Would you be able to replicate their search with the information they provided in their methods section? If not, what is missing? (for example key words, data bases searched, inclusion, exclusion criteria, limits used, process, etc.)

9. Results

a) Do they provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review? Is their flow diagram included?

b) Do they provide the necessary details of the studies they included?

c) Have they organized their results logically and effectively?

d) Have they identified if the level of evidence for the different themes was strong, etc.?

e) Is their Evidence Table complete, concise, and clear?

10. Discussion, Limitations, Relevance to OT, and Conclusion

a) Do they summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence, relevance, etc?

b) Do they provide interpretation of the results? Point out interesting findings, discrepancies?

c) Do they situate the findings in other relevant literature?

d) Are appropriate limitations identified?

e) Have they answered their PICO questions with evidence from the literature?