The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews provide a rigorous synthesis of the best available evidence regarding a certain question. Where high-quality evidence is lacking, systematic reviewers may choose to rely on case series studies to provide information in relation to their question. However, to date there has been limited guidance on how to incorporate case series studies within systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of an intervention, particularly with reference to assessing the methodological quality or risk of bias of these studies. METHODS: An international working group was formed to review the methodological literature regarding case series as a form of evidence for inclusion in systematic reviews. The group then developed a critical appraisal tool based on the epidemiological literature relating to bias within these studies. This was then piloted, reviewed, and approved by JBI's international Scientific Committee. RESULTS: The JBI critical appraisal tool for case series studies includes 10 questions addressing the internal validity and risk of bias of case series designs, particularly confounding, selection, and information bias, in addition to the importance of clear reporting. CONCLUSION: In certain situations, case series designs may represent the best available evidence to inform clinical practice. The JBI critical appraisal tool for case series offers systematic reviewers an approved method to assess the methodological quality of these studies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We consider to use the ROB II tool 22 for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool 23 for quasiexperimental and controlled cohort studies. Uncontrolled cohort studies were assessed using a tool, developed by our team, to assess the risk of bias in series of subjects exposed to an intervention (see Supplementary Appendix 3). Case series were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist 24.”
From Efectividad del tratamiento de la sífilis gestacional en el último trimestre sobre la incidencia de sífilis congénita: revisión sistemática y metanálisis (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
Cites
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports
Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F. (2018) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110853 · Cited by 2,242
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164
Self-citationMunn, Z., Aromataris, E., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., Porritt, K., Farrow, J., Lockwood, C., Stephenson, M., Moola, S., Lizarondo, L., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152 · Cited by 977
Self-citationJBI's Systematic Reviews: Study Selection and Critical Appraisal
Porritt, K., Gomersall, J., & Lockwood, C. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000450430.97383.64 · Cited by 644
The Systematic Review: An Overview
Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000444496.24228.2c · Cited by 598
Self-citationIn Defense of Case Reports and Case Series
Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017 · Cited by 562
Munn, Z., Tufănaru, C., & Aromataris, E. (2014) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000451683.66447.89 · Cited by 543
Self-citationThe updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Jordan, Z., Lockwood, C. S., Munn, Z., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000155 · Cited by 491
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,003 of 1,003
Kaur, K., Okoye, J., Austin, W. J., Abdelmesih, S. R. S., Ahmed, R., Shetty, S., Rasul, S., Kolawole, A.-O., Sabra, M., & Ahmed, K. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.96260 · Cited by 1
“Case reports and series were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, ensuring transparency and validity in patient selection, diagnostic accuracy, and outcome reporting [12].”
Moody, E., McDougall, H., Paus Jenssen, E., McArthur, C., Affoo, R., Weeks, L. E., Macdonald, M., Mojbafan, A., & Langman, E. (2026) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-026-07011-x · Cited by 1
Gutiérrez-Tamayo, A. M., Mirama-Calderón, L. V., Vallejo- Ortega, M. T., & Gaitán-Duarte, H. G. (2025) · Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología · doi:10.18597/rcog.4268 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Munn, Z., Barker, T. H., Moola, S., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., McArthur, A., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Barker, Timothy Hugh
- ORCID
- Venue
- JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
- Published
- 2019-09-23
- Volume
- Publish Ahead of Print
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2127-2133
- ISSN
- 2202-4433 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2974663997
- Cited by
- 1,581
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 404 · 2025: 392 · 2024: 317 · 2023: 230 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 13
- FWCI
- 39.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- methodological quality, risk of bias, critical appraisal tools, internal validity, confounding, selection bias, information bias, reporting quality, evidence synthesis, systematic reviews
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Research Design, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
