An integrative review or overview results from the analysis and synthesis of research studies on a specific topic. Below are attributes of integrative reviews that indicate good quality of analysis and synthesis and usefulness in determining evidence-based practice. Reviews will usually not contain all of these characteristics.

Group, not individual, involvement in review processes.
Description of how studies were chosen and from what databases; reflects thorough and appropriate search.
Focused selection of studies.
Use of specific ratings of evidence strength; includes criteria used to analyze scientific merit.
A guiding framework (e.g., research utilization).
Focused description of studies (can be in tables).
Inclusion of tables that include critical information relative to applicability.
Conclusions follow logically from analysis.
Differentiates between clinical and statistical significance.

Based upon the quality of the review, the critiquer who wants to provide evidence for practice must answer the following questions:

What are the findings from the review? How precise are they? Were results similar from study to study?
Was there a clear result related to a particular intervention or was there a consistent relationship found between variables?
If results were not consistent across studies, what could explain the differences in results?
Do the results of the review help in answering patient care questions?
Were there any patient outcomes that were not addressed in the review?
Are the benefits of the recommended intervention(s) worth the harms and costs?
Describe the key elements/features of the approach or intervention.
Do the findings/conclusions of the review succeed in making you wanting to make a practice change?

Published evaluation tools (Stetler, et al. 1998, pp. 198-199; Brown, 1999, pp.239-240) exist for appraising integrative reviews.