The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 5 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data. METHODS: A working group was created to assess current critical appraisal tools for studies reporting prevalence data and develop a new tool for these studies in systematic reviews of prevalence. Following the development of this tool it was piloted amongst an experienced group of sixteen healthcare researchers. RESULTS: The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews. Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use. Some comments were provided which helped refine the criteria. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study found that this tool was well-accepted by users and further refinements have been made to the tool based on their feedback. We now put forward this tool for use by authors conducting prevalence systematic reviews.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper describes development and pilot testing of a 10-item critical appraisal tool for studies reporting prevalence data in systematic reviews. In a pilot with 16 experienced healthcare researchers, the tool was rated acceptable, easy to use, timely, and valid by all but one participant, though further psychometric testing was recommended.
Key findings
- The working group found no standard method for critically appraising prevalence studies and developed a tool addressing representative sampling, recruitment, sample size, description of subjects/setting, data coverage, objective measurement, reliability, statistical analysis, confounding, and subpopulation criteria.
- Among 16 pilot participants, mean ease of use was 3.63 on a 5-point scale, with 75% rating it 4 (“easy”); mean acceptability was 4.33, with all participants rating 4 or 5; mean timeliness was 3.94, with 88% rating 4 (“acceptable”).
- All participants except 1 viewed the tool as a valid quality appraisal checklist for prevalence data.
- Feedback led to changes in question order and supporting information, but no changes were made to the individual questions; the tool was to be incorporated into the next Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review package.
Methods
- A Joanna Briggs Institute working group searched for systematic reviews of prevalence data and existing critical appraisal tools, then developed a new tool based on identified criteria and their own knowledge/research; the tool was internally trialed and refined.
- The tool was piloted at the 2013 Joanna Briggs Institute convention in Adelaide in October; attendees appraised a cross-sectional study using the new tool and completed a short survey on face validity, ease of use, acceptability, timeliness, and areas for improvement.
- Sixteen workshop participants completed the task and survey; 13 had an academic/research background, 2 had a health background, and 1 had both, with average research experience of 11 years (range 2.5–30 years).
Limitations
- The paper states the tool needs further testing in a larger-scale study to assess other clinimetric properties, particularly construct validity and inter-rater reliability.
- Evident from the text: the pilot assessed only face validity, ease of use, acceptability, and timeliness, with no formal inter-rater reliability or construct validity testing.
- Evident from the text: the pilot used a small convenience sample of 16 workshop attendees, mostly with academic/research backgrounds, which may limit generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 5 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The group identified that the major area where prevalence reviews were disparate was in their conduct of critical appraisal or quality assessment of included studies.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have developed this tool as we did not feel that any of the current checklists identified from our search sufficiently addressed important quality issues in prevalence studies.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use.”
- Also stated in: § 10. · plain
“participants providing a rating of 4, corresponding to 'easy' .”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 10. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of tools were identified including the Joanna Briggs Institute's Descriptive/Case series critical appraisal tool.”
- Also stated in: § Developing the Tool · plain
“Critical appraisal tools from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) were also identified.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Developing the Tool
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Developing the Tool · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Out of all the participants, all except 1 viewed the tool as a valid quality appraisal checklist for prevalence data (Table 4).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, currently there does not appear to be any formal guidance for authors wishing to conduct a review of prevalence.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclear- Rests on an assumption: The working group's search for systematic reviews of prevalence was comprehensive enough to conclude that no formal guidance exists.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average time spent working in research was 11 years, with the minimum being 2.5 years and the maximum experience being 30 years.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These comments resulted in some changes in the order of the questions of the tool and the supporting information used to assist in judging criteria, although no changes were made to the individual questions.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For timeliness, the mean score was 3.94, with 88% providing a score of 4 (acceptable).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 16, 13 participants stated they had an academic/research background, 2 said they had a health background, and one said they had both.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The working group's search for critical appraisal tools was comprehensive enough to conclude that no standard method exists.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Number of cases | 15 | 16 | 15 | 16 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Number of cases | 15 | 16 | 15 | 16 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 15Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sixteen workshop participants completed the critical appraisal task and survey.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The systematic review of evidence has been proposed and is now well-accepted as the ideal method to summarize the literature relating to a certain social or healthcare topic (2,3).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2]
- Not checked yetcites [3]
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.
In the paper
“Some of the tools [most notably the tool refined by Hoy et al. (20)] contain similar questions to our tool but there are important differences.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.
“However, policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.”
The paper relies on this without support.
User acceptance and face validity of the tool indicate its validity as a quality appraisal checklist.
“The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews.”
“along with a short survey that was developed to establish the face validity, ease of use, acceptability and timeliness (i.e.time taken to complete) of the tool, and feedback on areas for improvement (23).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The working group's search for critical appraisal tools was comprehensive enough to conclude that no standard method exists.
“Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
“The group then searched for critical appraisal tools that have been used to assess studies reporting on prevalence data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The tool's criteria cover all important aspects of methodological quality for prevalence studies.
“The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews.”
“Based on a review of these criteria and our own knowledge and research we developed a tool specifically for use in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The working group's search for systematic reviews of prevalence was comprehensive enough to conclude that no formal guidance exists.
“However, currently there does not appear to be any formal guidance for authors wishing to conduct a review of prevalence.”
“The working party began by conducting a search for systematic reviews of prevalence data to determine how the methodological quality of studies included in these reviews were assessed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There has been substantial variability in how studies reporting prevalence data are critically appraised.
“Until now there has been substantial variability in how studies reporting prevalence data are critically appraised.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data are becoming increasingly important and popular.
“Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data are becoming increasingly important as decision makers realize their usefulness in informing policy and practice.”
“Prevalence systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the research community.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many health problems are not easily diagnosed or defined, and some measures may not be capable of including or excluding appropriate levels or stages of the health problem.
“Many health problems are not easily diagnosed or defined and some measures may not be capable of including or excluding appropriate levels or stages of the health problem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If outcomes are assessed using observer-reported or self-reported scales, the risk of over- or under-reporting is increased, and objectivity is compromised.
“If the outcomes were assessed using observer reported, or self-reported scales, the risk of over-or under-reporting is increased, and objectivity is compromised.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Validated measurement tools have a significant impact on outcome assessment validity.
“Importantly, determine if the measurement tools used were validated instruments as this has a significant impact on outcome assessment validity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Considerable judgment is required to determine the presence of some health outcomes.
“Considerable judgment is required to determine the presence of some health outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Differing methods of analysis are based on differing assumptions about the data and how it will respond.
“differing methods of analysis are based on differing assumptions about the data and how it will respond.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prevalence rates found in studies only provide estimates of the true prevalence of a problem in the larger population.
“Prevalence rates found in studies only provide estimates of the true prevalence of a problem in the larger population.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Since some subgroups are very small, 95% confidence intervals are usually given.
“Since some subgroups are very small, 95% confidence intervals are usually given.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Incidence and prevalence studies often draw or report findings regarding the differences between groups.
“Incidence and prevalence studies often draw or report findings regarding the differences between groups.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Each study included in the systematic review underwent a quality assessment to evaluate the research methodology employed in each study to ensure the reliability and validity of its findings. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, widely acknowledged and reliable for quality assessment, were used to investigate each study [17].”
From Malaria in pregnancy: Meta-analyses of prevalence and associated complications (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“both have been previously validated [23, 24].”
From What are the barriers, facilitators and interventions targeting help-seeking behaviours for common mental health problems in adolescents? A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment using the JBI tool, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.”
From Adherence to PCSK9 Inhibitors in Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two reviewers (MD and CS) independently assessed the risk of bias/ study quality of each included study with the adjusted Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (Munn et al., 2014).”
From Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Munn et al., 2014
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Tropical climates with appropriate temperature, humidity, and rainfall conditions encourage endemicity of the disease as they are conducive to the reproduction of the parasite within the anopheles’ mosquito, which is itself native to these environments [17].”
From Malaria in pregnancy: Meta-analyses of prevalence and associated complications (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the citing paper
“we urge reviewers to refer to the JBI critical appraisal tool, [4] which has been formally evaluated and is increasingly used across these types of reviews.”
From How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“The quality and risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) which is designed specifically for assessing prevalence studies 25 .”
From Anxiety in Informal Dementia Carers: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Environmental factors can have a substantial impact on the prevalence or incidence of a condition so it is important that authors define the context or specific setting relevant to their review question [15, 29].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“These types of reviews enable governments, policy makers, health professionals and the general population to inform the development and delivery of health services and evaluate changes and trends in diseases over time [15, 29].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
Cites
Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal
Ndiaye, M., Lespez, L., Tribolo, C., Rassé, M., Hadjas, I., Davidoux, S., Huysecom, É., & Douze, K. (2024) · Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000667478 · Cited by 24,214
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613 · cited 2×
“(STROBE) Checklist (18) 22 Targeted towards reporting”
BackgroundVandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Hoy, D., Brooks, P., Woolf, A., Blyth, F., March, L., Bain, C., Baker, P., Smith, E., & Buchbinder, R. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 · Cited by 2,555
Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies
Naing, L., & Winn, T. (2006) · Cited by 1,381
McGrath, J., Saha, S., Welham, J., El Saadi, O., MacCauley, C., & Chant, D. (2004) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-2-13 · Cited by 1,072
Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences.
Marriott, F. H. C., & Daniel, W. W. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530782 · Cited by 760
Bahekar, A., Singh, S., Saha, S. A., Molnár, J., & Arora, R. (2007) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.037 · Cited by 699
Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem.
Loney, P., Chambers, L. W., BENNETT, K. J., Roberts, J. G., & Stratford, P. W. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 550
Munn, Z., Tufănaru, C., & Aromataris, E. (2014) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000451683.66447.89 · Cited by 543
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual: 2011 edition. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2011.
- Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D. The Systematic Review of Prevalence and Incidence Data The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual 2014. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–999 of 999
Gedefie, A., Debash, H., Kassaw, A. B., Mankelkl, G., Metaferia, Y., Belete, M. A., Desale, S. B., Sebsibe, S., Tilahun, M., Eshetu, B., et al. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-10824-7 · Cited by 8
“The quality of studies included in this SRMA was evaluated by three authors (ZM, MAB and BK) using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality appraisal tool designed for prevalence studies [17].”
Tag, Z. M., Alashwal, H., Chemaitelly, H. S., & Abu-Raddad, L. J. (2025) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105956 · Cited by 13
“56 The nine assessment domains included the appropriateness of the sampling frame, appropriateness of the sampling method, adequacy of sample size, clarity in the description of study subjects and settings, robustness of data analysis (i.e., analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the…”
Lee, A. R. Y. B., Vidhya, S. N., Hong, A., Amanda, T. W., Yau, C. E., Low, C. E., & Merchant, R. A. (2026) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2026.103085 · Cited by 8
Song, X., Cong, S., Zhang, M., Gan, X., Meng, F. J., & Huang, B. (2023) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/s12883-023-03201-x · Cited by 7
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [26] was used to assess the quality of the study in the articles that met the full-text inclusion criteria.”
MethodSmith, L., Martin, A. F., Brooks, S. K., Davies, R., Stein, M. V., Amlôt, R., Marteau, T. M., & Rubin, G. J. (2024) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.05.030 · Cited by 6
Non-cholera Vibrio infections in Southeast Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Muzembo, B. A., Kitahara, K., Hayashi, C., Mashino, S., Honda, J., Ohno, A., Khatiwada, J., Dutta, S., & Miyoshi, S. (2024) · Journal of Infection and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102564 · Cited by 6
Simporé, A., Bazie, B. V. E. J. T., Yooda, A. P., Zouré, A. A., Sawadogo, S., Sawadogo, A., Kambiré, D., Compaore, T. R., Tao, I., Zongo, S. V., et al. (2024) · Reviews in Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/rmv.70006 · Cited by 6
“The extent of heterogeneity between the included studies was measured quantitatively by the heterogeneity index ( I 2 ) [20, 23].”
Epidemiology of Cysticercus tenuicollis in Sheep and Goats in the Tropics: A Systematic Review
Lawan, P. Y., Niba, A. T., & Awah‐Ndukum, J. (2024) · Veterinary Medicine International · doi:10.1155/vmi/7881494 · Cited by 6
Anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody screening in first-episode psychosis
Warren, N., Freier, K., Siskind, D. J., O’Gorman, C., Blum, S., Gillis, D., & Scott, J. G. (2022) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/00048674221089560 · Cited by 5
“Quality assessment of all studies in both Part 1 and Part 2 was performed using Johanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for cohort studies, case series and case reports (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodBitta, M. A., Kariuki, S. M., Mwita, C. C., Gwer, S., Mwai, L., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2017) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.10658.1 · Cited by 6
PROTOCOL: Mental disorder, psychological problems and terrorist behaviour: A systematic review
Sarma, K. M., Carthy, S. L., & Cox, K. M. (2022) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/cl2.1249 · Cited by 6
“Items are presented in the Full‐ Text Coding Form at Appendix A and assessments will be informed by explanatory guides for the tools (e.g., Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodThe Implementation of Palliative Home Care in Southeast Asian Countries: An Integrative Review
Kristanti, M. S., Agastiya, I. M. C., & Kurianto, E. (2022) · Home Health Care Management & Practice · doi:10.1177/10848223221113858 · Cited by 7
Gaza Midwives’ Lived Experience of Providing Maternity Care During COVID-19
Baloushah, S., Abu-Hamad, N., Mohammadi, N., Alkasseh, A. S. M., & Salah, M. S. (2022) · European Journal of Midwifery · doi:10.18332/ejm/150490 · Cited by 6
The prevalence of flatfoot among Saudi population: A systematic review
Almansouf, A. S., Alosaimi, M., Alsinan, S. H., Almanea, R. K., Almansoof, A. S., & Jawadi, A. H. (2022) · Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research · doi:10.25259/jmsr_83_2022 · Cited by 6
Drug/Natural Products-Related problems in Elderly
Zailani, I. S., Moshawih, S., Kifli, N., Wahab, M. S. A., Lee, K. S., & Ming, L. C. (2022) · Progress in Drug Discovery & Biomedical Science · doi:10.36877/pddbs.a0000312 · Cited by 6
Prevalence of Drug Fever among Cases of Nosocomial Fever: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Someko, H., Okazaki, Y., Kuniyoshi, Y., Yoshida, A., Baba, K., Ijiri, A., & Tsujimoto, Y. (2023) · Internal Medicine · doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.2322-23 · Cited by 6
“Two pairs of 4 authors (HS, AY, KB, and AI) independently assessed the risk of bias for each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool (12, 13).”
George, A. M., Felicita, A. S., Priyadharsini, V. J., Anita, P., & Prasanna Aravind, T. R. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.53596 · Cited by 7
“The risk of bias for the included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs tool for cross-sectional studies [5].”
MethodApara, E. F., Olawade, D. B., Olatunji, G. D., Kokori, E., Aderinto, N., & David-Olawade, A. C. (2024) · Women and Children Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.wcn.2024.07.001 · Cited by 6
Gattie, M., Lieven, E., & Kluk, K. (2024) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085 · Cited by 8
Prevalencia de úlceras por presión en atención primaria: estudio de Cuenca
Herráiz-Adillo, Á., & Parrilla, J. J. R. (2021) · Gerokomos · doi:10.4321/s1134-928x2021000200009 · Cited by 6
Adeliyi, T. T., Ogunsakin, R. E., Adebiyi, M. O., & Olugbara, O. O. (2021) · Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v22.i3.pp1476-1484 · Cited by 6
Transgender identity and mental health in adolescence: a scoping reviewPreprint
Patrick, K. L. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.08.20.20178897 · Cited by 7
“(56) Using this tool, studies are rated on 10 criteria and scored 0 to 10.”
MethodVitamin D status in active duty Navy military personnel: a systematic review
Henriques, M., Rodrigues, D., Viegas, S., Serranheira, F., & Sacadura‐Leite, E. (2023) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oemed-2022-108710 · Cited by 5
Screening for cervical cancer among women with behavioral health conditions-A systematic review
Mkuu, R. S., Salloum, R. G., Shenkman, E. A., Schaefer, N., Le, T., Jorratt, A., Meduri, Y., Goede, D. L., Lee, J., & Staras, S. A. S. (2023) · Preventive Medicine Reports · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102238 · Cited by 5
“We assessed the quality of studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool risk of bias assessment (Munn et al., 2014; Munn et al., 2015).”
MethodMartinez, B., Breeding, T., Katz, J. B., Kostov, A., Santos, R. G., Ibrahim, J., & Elkbuli, A. (2023) · The American Surgeon · doi:10.1177/00031348231216482 · Cited by 5
“21”
Mukandabvute, D., Paul, N. H., Fanuel, S., Chipatiko, M., Sakwa, L.-L., Chin’ombe, N., & Madzingaidzo, L. (2025) · Veterinary Research Communications · doi:10.1007/s11259-025-10715-x · Cited by 5
“Five authors (NHP, LS, FS, NC and LM) evaluated the quality of selected reports using the adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case report/series studies (Munn et al. 2014 ).”
Liu, X., Zhang, R., Wang, M., Tang, C., Yang, F., Yang, Q., Huang, C., Zhang, Y., Ren, Z., Liu, L., et al. (2025) · Gut Pathogens · doi:10.1186/s13099-025-00693-5 · Cited by 5
“The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool [16].”
Tilahun, M., Gedefie, A., Seid, A., Debash, H., & Shibabaw, A. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-11136-6 · Cited by 6
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality assessment manual guided the evaluation of each study’s methodological validity [15].”
Disfani, R. A., Shadfar, F., Mohammadi, M. R., Shamsi, L., Asghari, A., Badri, M., Davoodi, T., & Maleki, F. (2025) · Veterinary Medicine and Science · doi:10.1002/vms3.70450 · Cited by 5
“The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies (Munn et al. 2014).”
Videira, S., Rodrigues, M. A., Santos, J., Guedes, J. C., Martins, J. P., & da Silva (2025) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105037 · Cited by 8
Giardia duodenalis in Rodents: A Global Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Davoodi, T., Feizi, J., Karimi, K., Mohammadi, M. R., Pouryousef, A., Azizi, E., Asghari, A., & Shadfar, F. (2025) · Veterinary Medicine and Science · doi:10.1002/vms3.70546 · Cited by 5
“The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for prevalence studies (Munn et al. 2014).”
Papic, C., Wyborn, J., Schultz, R., Kifley, A., Cameron, I. D., & Simpson, G. K. (2025) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003831 · Cited by 6
Li, Y.-Y., Yu, Y., Jing, H. E., Gu, Y. H., Zhang, H., Bao, W.-P., Liu, C., Cao, L., & Fan, Y. (2025) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2025.2602995 · Cited by 5
“We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for the quality assessment of cross-sectional studies and the maximum score attainable (signifying high quality) is 8 points for the cross-sectional studies [22].”
The global distribution of Paragonimus species
Lu, Y.-B., Hu, K., Mao, M.-L., Shi, L.-B., Zhu, C., & Zou, J.-X. (2026) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-026-01428-7 · Cited by 5
“The first author and the second author independently assessed the risk of bias for the included studies via the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools [62].”
Esmaeilzadeh, F., Mohammadi, M., Amjadipour, A., Jafari, A., Ghelichi-Ghojogh, M., Khezri, R., & Rajabi, A. (2022) · Iranian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.18502/ijph.v51i7.10085 · Cited by 5
“Quality Assessment Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tool (13) for prevalence studies.”
MethodGuidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews
Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aas.14295 · Cited by 11
Systematic review and meta-analysis of tuberculosis in animals in Nigeria
Ahmad, I., Raji, Y. E., Hassan, L., Samaila, A., Aliyu, B., Zinsstag, J., & Fasina, F. O. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17215 · Cited by 6
“First, the quality of the eligible papers was evaluated using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence data described previously [33].”
MethodTrauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among First Responders
Zegel, M., Leonard, S. J., Healy, N. A., & Vujanovic, A. A. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-38149-2_21 · Cited by 7
Pino, C. K.-D., Ramos‐García, P., Pimenta-Barros, L.-A., & González‐Moles, M. Á. (2024) · Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal · doi:10.4317/medoral.26808 · Cited by 5
Asghari, A., Mohammadi, M. R., Naseri, L., Shamsi, L., Badri, M., & Pouryousef, A. (2024) · Veterinary Medicine and Science · doi:10.1002/vms3.70176 · Cited by 5
Tilahun, M., Belete, M. A., Gedefie, A., Debash, H., Alemayehu, E., Gebretsadik, D., Ebrahim, H., Mohammed, O., Eshetu, B., Tekele, S. G., et al. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-10425-w · Cited by 5
“Each study design was evaluated for methodological validity using the Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) quality assessment manual [15, 16].”
Partner relationships following transition: A metasynthesis of the views of cisgender partners
Thornton, C., Riggs, D. W., & Cations, M. (2025) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2025.2456492 · Cited by 5
Tekele, S. G., Mulatie, Z., Gedefie, A., Ebrahim, H., Eshetu, B., Tilahun, M., Debash, H., Shibabew, A., Mohammed, O., Alemayehu, E., et al. (2025) · Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control · doi:10.1186/s13756-025-01578-7 · Cited by 5
“The Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) quality appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies [25].”
Epidemiology of neonatal near miss in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Osman, M. O., Nour, T. Y., Ibrahim, A. M., Aden, M. A., Nur, A. M., Roble, A. K., & Abate, K. H. (2022) · International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ijans.2022.100422 · Cited by 5
Harris, M. R., Fein, E. C., & Machin, M. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.823276 · Cited by 5
“For this review, quality appraisals were undertaken for each study, to assess the methodological quality and potential bias in the design, conduct and analysis, utilizing the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools (40).”
MethodIsaiah, P. M., Palmeirim, M. S., & Steinmann, P. (2022) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.126884.1 · Cited by 5
Prevalence of cancer therapy cardiotoxicity as assessed by imaging procedures: A scoping review
Cantoni, V., Green, R., Assante, R., D’Antonio, A., Maio, F., Criscuolo, E., Bologna, R., Petretta, M., Cuocolo, A., & Acampa, W. (2023) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.5854 · Cited by 5
Shimamura, Y., Kuniyoshi, Y., Ueta, H., Miyauchi, T., Yamamoto, M., & Tsujimoto, Y. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.49636 · Cited by 5
“Assessment of the risk of bias of included studies: Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in each study using the JBI Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [20,21].”
MethodScreening for spinal muscular atrophy
Sampaio, H. A., Wilcken, B., & Farrar, M. A. (2018) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja17.00772 · Cited by 5
The Value of Electroencephalogram in Assessing Children With Speech and Language Impairments.
Systad, S., Bjørnvold, M., Sørensen, C., & Lyster, S. (2019) · Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-17-0087 · Cited by 4
Vitamin A deficiency in Brazilian Children younger than 5 years old: a systematic review
Pedraza, D. F. (2020) · Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil · doi:10.1590/1806-93042020000300002 · Cited by 5
Aruhomukama, D., & Bulafu, D. (2021) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51240.1 · Cited by 5
Karamchandani, U., Ahmed, U., Rufai, S. R., Tan, N., Tan, W., Petrushkin, H., & Solebo, A. L. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059038 · Cited by 5
COVID-19 pandemic and food security in different contexts: A systematic review protocol
Doustmohammadian, A., Mohammadi‐Nasrabadi, F., & Fadavi, G. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273046 · Cited by 5
López‐Díaz, Á., Valdés-Florido, M. J., Palermo-Zeballos, F. J., Pérez-Romero, A., Menéndez-Sampil, C., & Lahera, G. (2022) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114910 · Cited by 5
Zhou, Q., Liu, A., Wang, S.-L., Li, J., He, M., & Chen, L. (2022) · Transfusion Medicine · doi:10.1111/tme.12935 · Cited by 5
“Considering this analysis is a cross-sectional study, together with the applicability of the quality assessment, all included studies were assessed for methodologic quality using the prevalence critical appraisal instrument developed by Munn and colleagues.(13)”
Methodda Costa, T. M. P., Nascimento, M. D. C. C., Peralta-Mamani, M., Rubira‐Bullen, I. R. F., Junqueira, J. L. C., & Soares, M. Q. S. (2022) · Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2022.12.009 · Cited by 5
McMahon, M. J., Lynch, L., Wormald, A., Eustace‐Cook, J., McCarron, M., McCallion, P., & Smith, V. A. (2024) · HRB Open Research · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13740.2 · Cited by 5
Doody, P., Aunger, J. A., Asamane, E. A., Greig, C. A., Lord, J. M., & Whittaker, A. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030147 · Cited by 5
“The quality of eligible studies from full text screening will be assessed by two reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for studies reporting prevalence data 17 .”
MethodDuc, T. Q., Le, A. T.-K., Quynh, V. T., Huong, N. T. T., & Phan, Q. N. (2022) · Substance Abuse Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/11782218221086653 · Cited by 5
Bhuvan, K. C., Alrasheedy, A. A., Ibrahim, M. I. M., Paudyal, V., Christopher, C. M., Shrestha, S., & Shrestha, S. (2024) · Pain Management · doi:10.1080/17581869.2024.2411930 · Cited by 4
Mekonnen, C. K., Abate, H. K., Azagew, A. W., & Agimas, M. C. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324363 · Cited by 4
“Data were independently extracted by five authors using a standardized data extraction format that was developed according to the 2014 JBI Reviewers’ Manual [18].”
Ferdes, I., Medrouh, B., Hakem, A., & Lafri, I. (2025) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2025.105836 · Cited by 6
Systematic review of the outcomes of urethroplasty following urethral lengthening in transgender men
Neuville, P., Madec, F.-X., Vetterlein, M. W., Adamowicz, J., Białek, Ł., Campos‐Juanatey, F., Chierigo, F., Cocci, A., Frankiewicz, M., Klemm, J., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01132-4 · Cited by 4
“Key Findings: Summary of notable results or conclusions from each study.”
Islam, M. M., Elfadl, A. K., Naeem, A., Abdeen, R., Al-Hajri, H. M., Sayeed, M. A., Dejene, H., Alawneh, J. I., & Hassan, M. M. (2025) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens14090841 · Cited by 4
“This assessment was performed using a 10-question appraisal tool [23], with responses classified as “yes”, “no”, “not applicable”, or “unclear”.”
Ghorbani, A., Menati, R., Kakian, F., Pouryousef, A., Mousivand, A., Karimi, K., Maleki, F., Asghari, A., & Feizi, J. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1155/cjid/8837624 · Cited by 4
Carraturo, F., Santonicola, R., & Cella, S. (2025) · Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/21677026251365927 · Cited by 4
“The risk-of-bias assessment tool specifically developed for epidemiological studies by Hoy et al. (2012) was used with the implementation of an extra item related to the adequacy of sample size derived from Munn et al. (2014).”
Hosseinabadi, M., Khodadadi, N., Tehrani, H., Orooji, A., & Sany, S. B. T. (2025) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71270 · Cited by 4
“Second, an independent dual rating was conducted to evaluate the quality of both cross ‐ sectional and interventional studies using the JBI critical appraisal checklist [32, 33] and and the Cochrane risk of bias tool [32, 34], respectively.”
González-Jarrín, P., Fernández-Fernández, J., Tormo, J. V. G., & García, C. G. (2025) · Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology · doi:10.3390/jfmk10040398 · Cited by 4
“…[35], two tools were used at this stage: the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Study [36] was used to assess analytical cross-sectional studies, and the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data [37] was used to assess descriptive studies.”
Hou, J., Duan, W., Wang, Y., Liao, Y., Bu, H., Mu, W., Tang, X., & Liu, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1659671 · Cited by 5
Zhang, X., Zhao, T., Xie, T., Zhang, S., Xu, Q., Cheng, Y., Wei, H., He, A., Liu, B., Lu, Q., et al. (2025) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103651 · Cited by 5
“Quality assessments were conducted with the tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute 17 that was specifically designed for epidemiological studies using rates or proportions.”
Beaudry, G. M., Harney, B. L., Larney, S., Plugge, E., Spaulding, A. C., & Kronfli, N. (2026) · The Lancet Public Health · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(25)00277-4 · Cited by 5
Eye Health Awareness and School-Based Screening in Saudi Schools: A Systematic Literature Review
Al-Atawi, S. K. (2026) · Clinical Optometry · doi:10.2147/opto.s569431 · Cited by 4
Quddusi, A. I., Wilson, J. A., Furlan, J. C., Klurfan, P., Deng, J., Waheed, H., Abbaspour, R., Fischer, G., Halabian, N., & Fehlings, M. G. (2026) · Spinal Cord · doi:10.1038/s41393-026-01182-5 · Cited by 4
Mutluer, T., Fıçıcıoğlu, İ. E. G., Uysal, M., Ekinci, S., Coskun, C. N., Mete, H. K., Çaltıner, Ş. N. İ., Bugay, B. Z., Sever, E., & Başdoğan, Ç. (2026) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-025-02867-7 · Cited by 4
“The quality of the included studies was independently assessed by the two independent authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools, selected based on study design as described by Munn et al. [27 ].”
Global epidemiology of neonatal herpes: systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regressions
Aldien, A. S., Harfouche, M., Alareeki, A., Chemaitelly, H. S., & Abu-Raddad, L. J. (2026) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.16.04104 · Cited by 4
“The ROB assessment in this study was conducted using a specific approach, the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool [ 36 , 37 ], supplemented by guidance from the Cochrane approach [ 27 ].”
Evaluating Mental Health Outcomes in COVID-19 ICU Survivors: A Scoping Review of Measurement Tools
T’ng, K., Kenardy, J. A., & Hartanto, A. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13113191 · Cited by 4
“It serves to inform key community stakeholders on the development, prioritisation, delivery, and use of health services as well as their evaluation [16].”
BackgroundWong, Z. Y., de Jongh, F. W., Ingels, K. J. A. O., van Heerbeek, N., & Pouwels, S. (2024) · JPRAS Open · doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2024.10.015 · Cited by 4
Bimerew, M., Getie, ፟., Araya, F. G., Dessalegn, N., Wondmieneh, A. B., & Ayalneh, M. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084003 · Cited by 4
Kumie, G., Nigatie, M., Alamrew, A., Gedfie, S., Kassahun, W., Jemal, A., Mulugeta, C., Ayana, S., Ayele, M., Lake, E. S., et al. (2024) · Microvascular Research · doi:10.1016/j.mvr.2024.104779 · Cited by 4
Kungwengwe, G., Donnachie, D. J., Tong, K. S., & Bodansky, D. (2025) · European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology · doi:10.1007/s00590-025-04186-8 · Cited by 4
“We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies [16] and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for cross-sectional and observational cohort studies [17] to assign an “Applicable Score” (A) to each study, categorising them into low (A > 75%),…”
Isaza, K. A. C., Restrepo, J. C. G., & Uribe, J. C. G. (2025) · trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad · doi:10.22430/21457778.3272 · Cited by 8
Eshetu, B., Gedefie, A., Mulatie, Z., Alemayehu, E., Belete, M. A., Tekele, S. G., Gebretsadik, D., Ebrahim, H., Tilahun, M., Debash, H., et al. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-11212-x · Cited by 3
“We classified the risk of bias in each domain as either low risk, high risk, or unclear [15].”
Vitamin D status in the active duty Navy military personnel: protocol for a systematic review
Henriques, M., Rodrigues, D., Sacadura‐Leite, E., Viegas, S., & Serranheira, F. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060876 · Cited by 4
Alkholifi, F. K., Abdi, S. A. H., & Qadri, M. M. (2022) · Clinics and Practice · doi:10.3390/clinpract12060091 · Cited by 4
“Quality Assessment The study’s quality was evaluated by using “The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool”, which is a validated critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence [17].”
MethodTsouloufi, T. K., MacVicar, I. S., Donnison, L. M., Smyth, K. L., & Peters, A. R. (2023) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.995213 · Cited by 4
Nguyen, T. P. A., Gautam, S., Mahato, S., Jensen, O. C., Roudsari, A. H., & Baygi, F. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293118 · Cited by 4
Akwongo, C. J., & Byaruhanga, C. (2024) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106214 · Cited by 4
Janani, F., Azami, P., Sanani, M. G. P., & Bamneshin, K. (2024) · GERMS · doi:10.18683/germs.2024.1420 · Cited by 4
Yang, C., Hu, X., Ling, X., Xiao, C., Duan, R., Qiu, J., Li, Q., Qin, X., Zeng, J., La, Z., et al. (2024) · Kidney Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100923 · Cited by 4
Häggman‐Henrikson, B., Lövgren, A., Wu, W., Peck, C., Westergren, H., & List, T. (2025) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.4792 · Cited by 4
“Risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool (Munn et al. 2014) by two independent reviewers; (AL) and (BHH/TL/CP), again considering any possible conflict of interest related to co-authorship.”
Yousefi, F., Mohammadi, Y., Nikikhah, K., & Abbasiyan, F. (2025) · Oral Radiology · doi:10.1007/s11282-025-00815-4 · Cited by 4
“The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the JBI’s Critical Appraisal checklist [9].”
Barua, N., Rahman, M. N., Tin, M. C. F., Yang, L., Alim, M. A., Akther, F., Handapangoda, N., Manathunga, T., Jinadasa, R., Liyanapathirana, V. C., et al. (2025) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms13040704 · Cited by 8
“Our systematic review will aid social workers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and consumers in making more informed decisions and better managing and preparing for the illness burden [23,24].”
Swanepoel, B., Swartz, L. M., Gericke, R., & Mall, S. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038431 · Cited by 4
Bhangale, G., Narladkar, B., & Tayde, R. S. (2021) · Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports · doi:10.1016/j.vprsr.2021.100560 · Cited by 5
Bahadivand, S., Doosti‐Irani, A., Karami, M., Qorbani, M., & Mohammadi, Y. (2021) · Journal of Education and Community Health · doi:10.52547/jech.8.2.135 · Cited by 5
Kassaw, C., Sisay, D., Awulachew, E., & Hareru, H. E. (2022) · AIDS Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2022/3246249 · Cited by 4
Sume, B. W., & Seyoum, G. (2022) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121221127096 · Cited by 4
Global prevalence, mortality, and main risk factors for COVID-19 associated pneumocystosis
Khodadadi, H., Ahmadpour, E., Nami, S., Mohammadi, R., Hosseini, H., Behravan, M., & Morovati, H. (2022) · Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine · doi:10.4103/1995-7645.359784 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Munn, Z., Moola, S., Riitano, D., & Lisy, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Venue
- International Journal of Health Policy and Management
- Publisher
- Maad Rayan Publishing Company
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 123-128
- ISSN
- 2322-5939 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4154549
- OpenAlex
- W2167191881
- Semantic Scholar
- 834402d2ae3882ab962ec84179a5857fc9bd890b
- Cited by
- 1,479
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 145 · 2025: 166 · 2024: 177 · 2023: 193 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 172 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 8.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- International Journal of Health Policy and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Information System of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences (Ardabil University of Medical Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- critical appraisal tools, prevalence, systematic reviews, methodological quality assessment, prevalence data, tool development, pilot study
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
