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 101–200 of 999
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/eci.13554 · Cited by 122
Cytokines dysregulation in schizophrenia: A systematic review of psychoneuroimmune relationship
Rodrígues-Amorím, D., Baltanás, T. R., Spuch, C., Caruncho, H. J., González‐Fernández, Á., Olivares, J. M., & Agís‐Balboa, R. C. (2017) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2017.11.023 · Cited by 120
Prevalence of PTSD, Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Correctional Officers: A Systematic Review
Regehr, C., Carey, M. G., Wagner, S. L., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Fraess‐Phillips, A., Krutop, E., Matthews, L. R., et al. (2019) · Corrections · doi:10.1080/23774657.2019.1641765 · Cited by 121
“Based on Munn’s Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument revised to specify the nature of the samples under consideration, a quality assessment was conducted consisting of 10 items (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodSystematic Review: Incidence of Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma Over 70 Years
Subhi, A. R. A., Boyle, V., & Elston, M. S. (2022) · Journal of the Endocrine Society · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac105 · Cited by 120
“To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used a tool developed to appraise prevalence and incidence studies [19].”
MethodDisclosure of suicidal ideation and behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence
Hallford, D. J., Rusanov, D., Winestone, B., Kaplan, R., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., & Melvin, G. (2023) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102272 · Cited by 117
Prevalence of degenerative joint disease of the temporomandibular joint: a systematic review
Pantoja, L. L. Q., de Toledo, I. P., Pupo, Y. M., Porporatti, A. L., Canto, G. D. L., Zwir, L. F., & Guerra, E. N. S. (2018) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2664-y · Cited by 117
Schierz, O., Baba, K., & Fueki, K. (2020) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.12984 · Cited by 117
Integrative Approaches in Acute Ischemic Stroke: From Symptom Recognition to Future Innovations
Saceleanu, V. M., Toader, C., Pleș, H., Covache-Busuioc, R.-A., Costin, H. P., Bratu, B.-G., Dumitrascu, D.-I., Bordeianu, A., Corlatescu, A.-D., & Ciurea, A. V. (2023) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines11102617 · Cited by 134
Fekadu, G. A., Kassa, G. M., Berhe, A. K., Muche, A. A., & Katiso, N. A. (2018) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3370-9 · Cited by 115
“The AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance) was used to evaluate the quality of the articles [54, 55].”
MethodKong, G., Chin, Y. H., Chong, B., Goh, R. S. J., Lim, O. Z.-H., Ng, C. H., Muthiah, M. D., Foo, R., Vernon, S. T., Loh, P. H., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.09.062 · Cited by 122
Mouiche, M. M. M., Moffo, F., Akoachere, J. T. K., Okah-Nnane, N. H., Mapiefou, N. P., Ndze, V. N., Wade, A., Djuikwo-Teukeng, F. F., Tseuko, D., Zambou, H. R., et al. (2019) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7450-5 · Cited by 115
Global prevalence of Toxocara infection in cats
Rostami, A., Sepidarkish, M., Ma, G., Wang, T., Ebrahimi, M., Fakhri, Y., Mirjalali, H., Hofmann, A., Macpherson, C. N. L., Hotez, P. J., et al. (2020) · Advances in Parasitology/Advances in parasitology · doi:10.1016/bs.apar.2020.01.025 · Cited by 117
Kairuz, C. A., Casanelia, L. M., Bennett‐Brook, K., Coombes, J., & Yadav, U. N. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11363-x · Cited by 123
“This tool has been considered a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies in systematic reviews [62, 63].”
MethodCanever, J. B., Zurman, G., Vogel, F., Sutil, D. V., Diz, J. B. M., Danielewicz, A. L., Moreira, B. D. S., Cimarosti, H., & de Avelar, N. C. P. (2024) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2024.03.040 · Cited by 114
Wang, C., Nishiyama, T., Kikuchi, S., Inoue, M., Sawada, N., Tsugane, S., & Lin, Y. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15490-7 · Cited by 113
Dragioti, E., Raduà, J., Solmi, M., Arango, C., Oliver, D., Cortese, S., Jones, P. B., Shin, J. I., Correll, C. U., & Fusar‐Poli, P. (2022) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01586-8 · Cited by 122
“We appraised the quality of individual studies reporting prevalence using a modified version of a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews addressing prevalence items [47].”
MethodMoossdorff-Steinhauser, H. F. A., Berghmans, B. C. M., Spaanderman, M. E. A., & Bols, E. M. J. (2021) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04636-3 · Cited by 115
Pace, C. S., Muzi, S., Rogier, G., Meinero, L. L., & Marcenaro, S. (2022) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105640 · Cited by 130
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Incidence and Prevalence of Endometriosis
Sarría‐Santamera, A., Orazumbekova, B., Terzić, M., Issanov, A., Chaowen, C., & Asúnsolo, Á. (2020) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare9010029 · Cited by 119
Reis, P. H. F., Laxe, L. A. C., Lacerda‐Santos, R., & Münchow, E. A. (2022) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.13331 · Cited by 109
Garrido‐Miguel, M., Oliveira, A., Cavero‐Redondo, I., Álvarez‐Bueno, C., Pozuelo‐Carrascosa, D. P., Soriano‐Cano, A., & Martínez‐Vizcaíno, V. (2019) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu11071698 · Cited by 108
“After evaluation of the risk of bias by the JBI tool [37], 12.”
MethodMandrioli, D., Schlünssen, V., Ádám, B., Cohen, R. A., Colosio, C., Chen, W., Fischer, A., Godderis, L., Göen, T., Ivanov, I. D., et al. (2018) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005 · Cited by 108
Tang, A. S. P., Ng, C. H., Phang, P. H., Chan, K. E., Chin, Y. H., Fu, C. E., Zeng, R. W., Xiao, J., Tan, D. J. H., Quek, J., et al. (2022) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.06.029 · Cited by 112
Wigham, S., Barton, S., Parr, J. R., & Rodgers, J. (2017) · Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1080/19315864.2017.1299267 · Cited by 107
The relationship between maladaptive appraisals and posttraumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis
Cuesta, G. G. D. L., Schweizer, S., Diehle, J., Young, J., & Meiser‐Stedman, R. (2019) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008198.2019.1620084 · Cited by 105
Paulo, M. S., Ádám, B., Akagwu, C., Akparibo, I., Al‐Rifai, R. H., Bazrafshan, S., Gobba, F., Green, A. C., Ivanov, I., Kežić, S., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.039 · Cited by 110
“estimates (The GATHER Working Group, 2016), for burden of disease studies, of prevalence studies in general (Munn et al., 2014) and of prevalence studies of occupational and/or environmental risk factors specifically (Krauth et al.”
BackgroundMethodMKRN3 Mutations in Central Precocious Puberty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Valadares, L. P., Meireles, C. G., de Toledo, I. P., Oliveira, R., Castro, L. C., Abreu, A. P., Carroll, R. S., Latronico, A. C., Kaiser, U. B., Guerra, E. N. S., et al. (2019) · Journal of the Endocrine Society · doi:10.1210/js.2019-00041 · Cited by 106
“Regarding risk of bias by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, 2 studies were classified as carryingmoderate risk of bias [25, 26] and 20 were classified as with low risk of bias [4–16, 19, 20, 23, 27–31].”
MethodRamos‐García, P., Roca-Rodríguez, M. D. M., Aguilar‐Diosdado, M., & González‐Moles, M. Á. (2020) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.13289 · Cited by 113
Wagner, S. L., White, N. C., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., Regehr, C., White, M., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Carey, M. G., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.23120 · Cited by 111
Bersia, M., Koumantakis, E., Berchialla, P., Charrier, L., Ricotti, A., Grimaldi, P., Dalmasso, P., & Comoretto, R. I. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101705 · Cited by 108
“45 Two authors of the present study (MB and EK) independently conducted the assessment of the risk of bias.”
Stevenson, K., Fellmeth, G. L., Edwards, S., Calvert, C., Bennett, P. R., Campbell, O. M. R., & Fuhr, D. C. (2022) · The Lancet Public Health · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(22)00342-5 · Cited by 123
Magnúsdóttir, S., & Hill, E. A. (2023) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101871 · Cited by 117
Footman, K., Keenan, K. L., Reiss, K., Reichwein, B., Biswas, P., & Church, K. (2018) · Studies in Family Planning · doi:10.1111/sifp.12049 · Cited by 101
Anxiety in Informal Dementia Carers: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence
Kaddour, L., & Kishita, N. (2020) · Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · doi:10.1177/0891988719868313 · Cited by 98
“” Furthermore, the tool includes a comprehensive usage guide.(25) The items regarding the description of participants and setting and the identification of confounding factors and subgroup differences were further defined to ensure consistent rating for this study.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTang, A. S. P., Chan, K. E., Quek, J., Xiao, J., Tay, P. W. L., Teng, M. L. P., Lee, K. S., Lin, S. Y., Myint, M. Z., Tan, B. Y., et al. (2022) · Clinical and Molecular Hepatology · doi:10.3350/cmh.2021.0406 · Cited by 101
Prevalence of HIV Among U.S. Female Sex Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Paz‐Bailey, G., Noble, M., Salo, K., & Tregear, S. (2016) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1332-y · Cited by 100
“We critically evaluated each included study to assess the likelihood that the prevalence estimates reported might be biased using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies [34].”
Methodvan Timmeren, E. A., van der Schans, C. P., van der Putten, A. A. J., Krijnen, W. P., Steenbergen, H. A., Valk, H. M. J. V. S. L., & Waninge, A. (2016) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/jir.12296 · Cited by 99
“Recently, a new tool was developed specifically for studies reporting prevalence data (Munn et al. 2014).”
MethodPrevalence of refractive errors in children in India: a systematic review
Sheeladevi, S., Bharani, S., Nukella, P. B., Modi, A., Ali, R., & Keay, L. J. (2018) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1111/cxo.12689 · Cited by 99
“The methodological quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the checklist developed by Munn et al.10 for prevalence studies, and publication bias was assessed through funnel plots.”
MethodSocial Anxiety and Empathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Pittelkow, M.-M., Rot, M. A. H., Seidel-Koulaxis, L. J., Feyel, N., & Roest, A. M. (2021) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102357 · Cited by 107
“To ascertain the validity of eligible studies, two raters (L.J.S., M.-M. P.) assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist (Munn, Moola, Riitano, & Lisy, 2014).”
MethodAggarwal, A. K., Lewis, D. J., Mason, M. D., Sullivan, R. J., & van der Meulen, J. (2016) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558716654631 · Cited by 98
“A 10-item checklist was therefore created and validated (Appendix B) with reference to previously published relevant checklists for observational studies (Loney, Chambers, Bennett, Roberts, & Stratford, 1998; Munn, Moola, Riitano, & Lisy, 2014; Vandenbroucke et al., 2007).”
MethodPormohammad, A., Ghorbani, S., Khatami, A., Farzi, R., Baradaran, B., Turner, D., Turner, R. J., Bahr, N. C., & Idrovo, J. (2020) · Reviews in Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/rmv.2112 · Cited by 100
A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Duloxetine
Rodrígues-Amorím, D., Olivares, J. M., Spuch, C., & Baltanás, T. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.554899 · Cited by 104
“The JBI is an evidence-based organization that develops strategies to conduct and perform a high quality systematic reviews (121).”
BackgroundAiello, F., Afflitto, G. G., Ceccarelli, F., Cesareo, M., & Nucci, C. (2022) · Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1155/2022/3091695 · Cited by 98
Tick exposures and alpha-gal syndrome: A systematic review of the evidence
Young, I., Prematunge, C., Pussegoda, K., Corrin, T., & Waddell, L. A. (2021) · Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101674 · Cited by 102
Ramírez, J., Nieto‐González, J. C., Rodríguez, R. C., Castañeda, S., & Carmona, L. (2017) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.12.001 · Cited by 96
Regehr, C., Carey, M. G., Wagner, S. L., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., White, M., et al. (2019) · Police Practice and Research · doi:10.1080/15614263.2019.1689129 · Cited by 93
“As a final step in the reviewing process, the team conducted a quality assessment review of each article using a modified version of Munn’s Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodDobrosavljevic, M., Solares, C., Cortese, S., Andershed, H., & Larsson, H. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.042 · Cited by 94
“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).”
MethodChowdhury, M., Haque, M. A., Farhana, Z., Anik, A. M., Chowdhury, A. H., Haque, S. M., Marjana, L.-L.-W., Bristi, P. D., Mamun, B. A. A., Uddin, M., et al. (2018) · Vascular Health and Risk Management · doi:10.2147/vhrm.s166111 · Cited by 101
“Each reviewer assessed study quality according to the Joanna Briggs Institute’s guide to conducting prevalence and incidence reviews, 15,16 and these data were extracted from each study for quality assessment purposes: was the sample representative of the target population; were study participants…”
Cheng, L. J., Wang, W., Lim, S. T., & Wu, X. V. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14795 · Cited by 98
Torgbenu, E. L., Luckett, T., Buhagiar, M. A., Chang, S., & Phillips, J. L. (2020) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07079-7 · Cited by 94
Sella, E., Miola, L., Toffalini, E., & Borella, E. (2021) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2021.1974309 · Cited by 107
“Quality assessment on the studies included (risk of bias) The methodological quality of each eligible study was examined using an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for assessing the risk of bias (see Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodXiao, J., Lim, L. K. E., Ng, C. H., Tan, D. J. H., Lim, W. H., Ho, C. S. H., Tan, E. X. X., Sanyal, A. J., & Muthiah, M. D. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.691696 · Cited by 94
“Quality assessment of the included articles was done with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool (34).”
MethodNasreen, S., Shokoohi, M., & Malvankar‐Mehta, M. S. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164034 · Cited by 93
Sheeladevi, S., Bharani, S., Nukella, P. B., Borah, R. R., Ali, R., & Keay, L. J. (2019) · Indian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/ijo.ijo_1235_18 · Cited by 100
“A detailed methodological quality assessment was done independently on the full‑text of shortlisted studies, using the critical appraisal checklist developed for prevalence studies by Munn et al. 2014.”
MethodPsychosocial oral health‐related quality of life impact: A systematic review
Su, N., van Wijk, A. J., & Visscher, C. M. (2020) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.13064 · Cited by 102
Moossdorff-Steinhauser, H. F. A., Berghmans, B. C. M., Spaanderman, M. E. A., & Bols, E. M. J. (2021) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04877-w · Cited by 93
Hulshof, C. T. J., Colosio, C., Daams, J. G., Ivanov, I. D., Prakash, K. C., Kuijer, P., Leppink, N., Mandić‐Rajčević, S., Masci, F., van der Molen, H. F., et al. (2018) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 · Cited by 102
“The Navigation Guide does not support checklist approaches, such as (Hoy et al., 2012; Munn et al., 2014), for assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies.”
BackgroundMethodTenkate, T. D., Ádám, B., Al‐Rifai, R. H., Chou, B. R., Gobba, F., Ivanov, I. D., Leppink, N., Loney, T., Pega, F., Peters, C., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.10.001 · Cited by 94
Burnout in oncologists and associated factors: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis
Yates, M., & Samuel, V. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.13094 · Cited by 91
Lange, S., Rehm, J., Anagnostou, E., & Popova, S. (2018) · Biochemistry and Cell Biology · doi:10.1139/bcb-2017-0014 · Cited by 91
“168 169 Critical appraisal of existing studies 170 Each study was critically appraised using a tool specifically for use in systematic reviews 171 addressing questions of prevalence (Munn et al. 2014).”
MethodThe impact of oro‐facial appearance on oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review
Larsson, P., Bondemark, L., & Häggman‐Henrikson, B. (2020) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.12965 · Cited by 90
Pormohammad, A., Ghorbani, S., Baradaran, B., Khatami, A., Turner, R. J., Mansournia, M. A., Kyriacou, D. N., Idrovo, J., & Bahr, N. C. (2020) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104390 · Cited by 91
Manresa, M., Pereda, A. A., Bataller, E., Rull, C. T., Ismail, K. M., & Webb, S. S. (2019) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-019-03894-0 · Cited by 89
Exertional Heat Stroke, Modality Cooling Rate, and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Filep, E. M., Murata, Y., Endres, B. D., Kim, G., Stearns, R. L., & Casa, D. J. (2020) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina56110589 · Cited by 90
“The JBI created a set of quality assurance checklists for case series and reports to be utilized for rigor in systematic reviews [37,38].”
MethodThe impact of oro‐facial pain conditions on oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review
Oghli, I., List, T., Su, N., & Häggman‐Henrikson, B. (2020) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.12994 · Cited by 88
Churilov, I., Churilov, L. P., MacIsaac, R. J., & Ekinci, E. I. (2018) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4381-4 · Cited by 88
“Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using MORE tool [28] and Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [29].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSchwarzer, G., & Rücker, G. (2022) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_10 · Cited by 90
Koohi, F., Kazemi, T., & Miri‐Moghaddam, E. (2019) · Annals of Hematology · doi:10.1007/s00277-019-03618-w · Cited by 84
The global prevalence of maternal near miss: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abdollahpour, S., Miri, H. H., & Khadivzadeh, T. (2019) · Health Promotion Perspectives · doi:10.15171/hpp.2019.35 · Cited by 86
Chong, W. H., Saha, B. K., Hu, K., & Chopra, A. (2021) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.04.005 · Cited by 89
“11 For cross-sectional studies, the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI), containing 10 items was used, and the total score ranged from 1 to 10.(12) During the quality assessment of the included studies, any disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third researcher.”
MethodWhite, W. F., Burgess, A., Dalgleish, T., Halligan, S. L., Hiller, R. M., Oxley, A., Smith, P. A., & Meiser‐Stedman, R. (2022) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291722001647 · Cited by 98
“35 Naish (2021) USA Trauma-exposed community 45% 18–65 40.”
Global prevalence of heated tobacco product use, 2015–22: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Sun, T., Anandan, A. S., Lim, C. C. W., East, K. A., Xu, S. S., Quah, A. C. K., Rutherford, B. N., Johnson, B., Qi, Y., Stjepanović, D., et al. (2023) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.16199 · Cited by 91
Whitten, T., Tzoumakis, S., Green, M. J., & Dean, K. (2023) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380231179133 · Cited by 97
“Consistent with the principles of evidence-based practice, stakeholders should use evidence obtained from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to maximize the quality of the prevalence estimates guiding policy and interventions (Munn et al., 2014; Paul & Leibovici, 2014).”
MethodPormohammad, A., Abasi, E., Azimi, T., Hosseini, S. S., Safari, H., Nasiri, M. J., & Fooladi, A. A. I. (2019) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103571 · Cited by 90
Yoong, S. L., Stockings, E., Chai, L. K., Tzelepis, F., Wiggers, J. H., Oldmeadow, C. J., Paul, C. L., Peruga, A., Kingsland, M., Attia, J., et al. (2018) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12777 · Cited by 84
Patient satisfaction with nursing care in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mulugeta, H., Wagnew, F., Dessie, G., Biresaw, H., & Habtewold, T. D. (2019) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-019-0348-9 · Cited by 84
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool for use in systematic review for 130 prevalence study was used for critical appraisal of studies[30].”
MethodThe incidence of musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ponkilainen, V., Kuitunen, I., Liukkonen, R. J., Vaajala, M., Reito, A. R., & Uimonen, M. (2022) · Bone and Joint Research · doi:10.1302/2046-3758.1111.bjr-2022-0181.r1 · Cited by 83
Lee, A. R. Y. B., Low, C. E., Yau, C.-E., Li, J., Ho, R. C. M., & Ho, C. (2023) · JAMA pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.2168 · Cited by 84
Predatory publications in evidence syntheses
Ross‐White, A., Godfrey, C. M., Sears, K., & Wilson, R. A. (2019) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.491 · Cited by 82
Bitta, M. A., Kariuki, S. M., Abubakar, A. A., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2018) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13540.3 · Cited by 83
Tan, M. C., Mansour, N., White, D. L., Sisson, A., El‐Serag, H. B., & Thrift, A. P. (2020) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.15760 · Cited by 80
The global incidence of bullous pemphigoid: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Persson, M. S. M., Begum, N., Grainge, M. J., Harman, K. E., Grindlay, D. J. C., & Gran, S. (2021) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.20743 · Cited by 82
Adults’ self-reported barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport: a systematic review
Pearson, L., Berkovic, D. E., Reeder, S. C., Gabbe, B. J., & Beck, B. (2022) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441647.2022.2113570 · Cited by 82
“The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools were used to assess the methodological rigour of peer-reviewed literature (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodAgbaria, N., Petzold, S., Deckert, A., Henschke, N., Veronese, G., Dambach, P., Jaenisch, T., Horstick, O., & Winkler, V. F. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256426 · Cited by 82
Jarhyan, P., Hutchinson, A., Khaw, D., Prabhakaran, D., & Mohan, S. (2022) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 81
Silva, M. A. G., Pantoja, L. L. Q., Dutra, K. L., Valladares‐Neto, J., Wolff, F. L., Porporatti, A. L., Guerra, E. N. S., & Canto, G. D. L. (2020) · Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2020.08.004 · Cited by 80
Tracey, M., Gilmartin, M., O’Neill, K., Fitzgerald, T., McHugh, S., Buckley, C. M., Canavan, R. J., & Kearney, P. M. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2818-2 · Cited by 82
“appraisal checklist for studies used in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence [14].”
Bronzato, J. D., Bomfim, R. A., Edwards, D. H., Crouch, D. H., Hector, M., & Gomes, B. P. F. D. A. (2020) · Archives of Oral Biology · doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2020.104669 · Cited by 81
Public health education for parents during the outbreak of COVID-19: a rapid review
on behalf of COVID-19 Evidence and Recommendations Working Group, Li, W., Liao, J., Li, Q., Baskota, M., Wang, X., Tang, Y., Zhou, Q. X., Wang, X., Luo, X., et al. (2020) · Annals of Translational Medicine · doi:10.21037/atm-20-3312 · Cited by 79
“The potential bias of the studies was assessed by Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool.”
Rahman, A. E., Hossain, A. T., Nair, H., Chisti, M. J., Dockrell, D., Arifeen, S. E., & Campbell, H. (2022) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(21)00586-6 · Cited by 78
Rutgers, C., Verweij, L. P. E., Priester-Vink, S., van Deurzen, D. F. P., Maas, M. M., & van den Bekerom, M. P. J. (2022) · Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7 · Cited by 78
Tan, D. J. H., Lim, W. H., Yong, J. N., Ng, C. H., Muthiah, M. D., Tan, E. X. X., Xiao, J., Lin, S. Y., Tang, A. S. P., Pan, X. H., et al. (2022) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.02.018 · Cited by 84
Hospitalizations of nursing home residents at the end of life: A systematic review
Allers, K., Hoffmann, F., & Schnakenberg, R. (2019) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216319866648 · Cited by 78
Prevalence of burnout among psychiatrists: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bykov, K. V., Zrazhevskaya, I. A., Topka, E. O., Peshkin, V. N., Dobrovolsky, A., Isaev, R. N., & Orlov, A. M. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.005 · Cited by 78
Santoso, A. M. M., Jansen, F., de Vries, R., Leemans, C. R., van Straten, A., & Leeuw, I. M. V. (2019) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2019.06.003 · Cited by 76
Fosse, T. H., Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S. V., & Martinussen, M. (2019) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2019.1634550 · Cited by 75
Prevalence of dentofacial injuries in contact sports players: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Werlich, M. O., Honnef, L. R., Bett, J. V. S., Domingos, F. L., Pauletto, P., de Souza, B. D. M., Duque, T. M., Hallal, A. L. C., & Canto, G. D. L. (2020) · Dental Traumatology · doi:10.1111/edt.12556 · Cited by 75
Uzairue, L. I., Rabaan, A. A., Adewumi, F. A., Okolie, O. J., Folorunso, J. B., Bakhrebah, M. A., Garout, M. A., Alfouzan, W. A., Halwani, M. A., Alamri, A. A., et al. (2022) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens11101092 · Cited by 75
“The revised Critical Apprais l Checklist develop d by the Joanna Briggs Institute [20,21] in which disagreements are resolved by consensus.”
MethodInfluentialJazayeri, S. B., Maroufi, S. F., Mohammadi, E., Ohadi, M. A. D., Hagen, E. M., Chalangari, M., Jazayeri, S. B., Safdarian, M., Zadegan, S. A., Ghodsi, Z., et al. (2023) · World Neurosurgery X · doi:10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100171 · Cited by 89
Horwood, L., Li, P., Mok, É., Shevell, M. I., & Constantin, E. (2019) · Sleep Health · doi:10.1016/j.sleh.2019.08.006 · Cited by 77
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
