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
22 Own result · 6 No basis given · 5 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- 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
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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?
plaindirectn = 16- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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?
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
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 201–300 of 999
Jakes, R. W., Kwon, N., Nordstrom, B. L., Goulding, R., Fahrbach, K. R., Tarpey, J., & Dyke, M. K. V. (2021) · Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1007/s10067-021-05783-8 · Cited by 72
“The quality of each study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [12]; the ten criteria used for this process are outlined in Supplementary Table 4.”
MethodInfluentialTinnitus as a comorbidity to temporomandibular disorders—A systematic review
Skog, C., Fjellner, J., Ekberg, E., & Häggman‐Henrikson, B. (2018) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.12710 · Cited by 71
Global prevalence of gingival recession: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Yadav, V. S., Gumber, B., Makker, K., Gupta, V., Tewari, N., Khanduja, P., & Yadav, R. K. (2022) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.14289 · Cited by 83
A systematic review of primary Sjögren’s syndrome in male and paediatric populations
Virdee, S., Greenan-Barrett, J., & Ciurtin, C. (2017) · Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1007/s10067-017-3745-z · Cited by 70
“Assessment of study quality We used a critical appraisal tool (The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool) designed for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence to assess the quality of our studies [14].”
MethodAntibiotic Resistance in Food Animals in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Founou, L. L., Amoako, D. G., Founou, R. C., & Essack, S. Y. (2018) · Microbial Drug Resistance · doi:10.1089/mdr.2017.0383 · Cited by 69
“The modified critical appraisal tool (high-quality item rating scale) developed by Munn et al. was used to assess the quality of all included studies 19 : (1) Was the basic data, including study period, sample type, bacteria of interest, and study site, provided?”
Quek, J., Ng, C. H., Tang, A. S. P., Chew, N., Chan, M. Y., Khoo, C. M., Wei, C. P., Chin, Y. H., Tay, P. W. L., Lim, G., et al. (2022) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.016 · Cited by 74
Salahi‐Niri, A., Nabavi-Rad, A., Monaghan, T. M., Rokkas, T., Doulberis, M., Sadeghi, A., Zali, M. R., Yamaoka, Y., Tacconelli, E., & Yadegar, A. (2024) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03816-y · Cited by 69
“Also, the quality appraisal of the encompassed studies was conducted independently by four reviewers (ASN, ANR, AS, AY) using an adapted version of the tool proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute for critical appraisal of prevalence studies [85].”
Prevalence of Candida Species in Endodontic Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Mergoni, G., Percudani, D., Lodi, G., Bertani, P., & Manfredi, M. (2018) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.016 · Cited by 68
Four‐dimensional oral health‐related quality of life impact in children: A systematic review
Omara, M., Stamm, T., & Bekes, K. (2020) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.13066 · Cited by 72
Disparities in the Prevalence of Childhood Obesity-Related Comorbidities: A Systematic Review
Obita, G., & AlKhatib, A. H. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.923744 · Cited by 69
“The two reviewers assessed the quality of selected studies independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (48, 49), adopting a scoring system of 0–5 for poor quality and 6–10 for high quality.”
MethodGuagnozzi, D., Arias, Á., & Lucendo, A. J. (2016) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.13573 · Cited by 68
Chen, L.-Y., Molina-Vila, M. A., Ruan, S.-Y., Su, K.-Y., Liao, W.-Y., Yu, K.-L., Ho, C.-C., Shih, J.-Y., Yu, C.-J., Yang, J. C.-H., et al. (2016) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.01.019 · Cited by 67
Mulugeta, H., Dessie, G., Wagnew, F., Leshargie, C. T., & Boneya, D. J. (2018) · Depression Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2018/6135460 · Cited by 69
Global prevalence of aggressive periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bouziane, A., Hamdoun, R., Abouqal, R., & Ennibi, O. K. (2020) · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/jcpe.13266 · Cited by 67
Social support and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in earthquake survivors: a systematic review
Alipour, F., & Ahmadi, S. (2020) · Social Work in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/15332985.2020.1795045 · Cited by 67
Filho, J. E., Borel, W. P., Diz, J. B. M., Barbosa, A. C., Britto, R. R., & Felício, D. C. (2019) · Cadernos de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/0102-311x00115718 · Cited by 74
Epidemiology of depression among displaced people: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bedaso, A., & Duko, B. (2022) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114493 · Cited by 67
Rodrígues-Amorím, D., Baltanás, T. R., Bessa, J. M., Sousa, N., Vallejo-Curto, M. D. C., Rodríguez-Jamardo, C., Heras, M. E. D. L., Díaz, R., Agís‐Balboa, R. C., Olivares, J. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.09.007 · Cited by 66
Segura‐Pérez, S., Richter, L., Rhodes, E., Hromi‐Fiedler, A. J., Vilar‐Compte, M., Adnew, M., Nyhan, K., & Pérez‐Escamilla, R. (2022) · Maternal and Child Nutrition · doi:10.1111/mcn.13353 · Cited by 65
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools appropriate for different study designs were used to assess the quality of observational and experimental studies (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodInfluentialSousa, H., Almeida, S. S., Bessa, J. M., & Pereira, M. G. (2020) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-020-09441-9 · Cited by 64
Peltrini, R., Cantoni, V., Green, R., Lionetti, R., D’Ambra, M., Bartolini, C., Luca, M. D., Bracale, U. M., Cuocolo, A., & Corcione, F. (2021) · The Surgeon · doi:10.1016/j.surge.2021.01.010 · Cited by 64
Time trends on the prevalence of myopia in India – A prediction model for 2050
Priscilla, J. J., & Verkicharla, P. K. (2021) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.12806 · Cited by 64
Relationship of human herpes virus 6 and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Pormohammad, A., Azimi, T., Falah, F., & Faghihloo, E. (2017) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.26000 · Cited by 67
Bitta, M. A., Kariuki, S. M., Abubakar, A. A., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2017) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13540.1 · Cited by 64
Hoffmann, F., Eggers, D., Pieper, D., Zeeb, H., & Allers, K. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.003 · Cited by 56
Tse, W. C., Djordjevic, F., Borja, V., Picco, L., Lam, T., Olsen, A., Larney, S., Dietze, P., & Nielsen, S. (2021) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103513 · Cited by 63
Tilley, E., Psaltis, P. J., Loetscher, T., Davis, D. H. J., Harrison, S. L., Kim, S., & Keage, H. A. D. (2018) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.08.037 · Cited by 63
“The study by Maniar et al. (2016)10 scored the highest (7 of 9) on the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data.9 It was the only study to report confidence intervals on the prevalence of delirium.”
BackgroundGender inequality and depression among medical students: A global meta-regression analysis
Pacheco, J. P. G., Silveira, J. B., Ferreira, R. P. C., Lo, K. K.-H., Schineider, J. R., Giacomin, H. T. A., & Tam, W. (2019) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.01.013 · Cited by 63
Teixeira, L. R., Azevedo, T. M., Bortkiewicz, A., da Silva, D. T. C., de Abreu, W., de Almeida, M. S., de Araujo, M. A. N., Gadzicka, E., Ivanov, I. D., Leppink, N., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 · Cited by 63
Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Uganda: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Opio, J. N., Munn, Z., & Aromataris, E. (2021) · Psychiatric Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11126-021-09941-8 · Cited by 71
Self-citationNguyen, T., Guajardo, M., Sahle, B. W., Renzaho, A., & Slewa-Younan, S. (2022) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 62
Systematic review of depression and anxiety in psoriatic arthritis
Kamalaraj, N., El‐Haddad, C., Hay, P., & Pile, K. D. (2019) · International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1111/1756-185x.13553 · Cited by 62
Self-injury prevalence in adolescents: A global systematic review and meta-analysis
Lucena, N. L., Rossi, T. R. A., Azevêdo, L. M. G., & Pereira, M. E. (2022) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106634 · Cited by 68
Abebe, M. S., Tareke, A. A., Alem, A., Debebe, W., & Kassaw, A. B. (2022) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121221139150 · Cited by 61
Rate of decline in kidney function with age: a systematic review
Guppy, M., Thomas, E. T., Glasziou, P., Clark, J. M., Jones, M., O’Hara, D. V., & Doust, J. A. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089783 · Cited by 61
Martin, C., Gowda, U., & Renzaho, A. M. N. (2015) · Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.nut.2015.07.007 · Cited by 63
“assessed using Johanna Briggs critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies [25].”
MethodBowring, A. L., Veronese, V., Doyle, J., Stoove, M. A., & Hellard, M. E. (2016) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-015-1281-x · Cited by 62
“Quality Appraisal Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [33, 34], which considers both the quality of the study methods and reporting.”
MethodHepatitis E seroprevalence in the Americas: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Horvatits, T., Ozga, A., Westhölter, D., Hartl, J., Manthey, C., Lütgehetmann, M., Rauch, G., Kriston, L., Lohse, A. W., Bendall, R. P., et al. (2018) · Liver International · doi:10.1111/liv.13859 · Cited by 61
Rugulies, R., Ando, E., Ayuso‐Mateos, J. L., Bonafede, M., Cabello, M., Tecco, C. D., Dragano, N., Durand-Moreau, Q. V., Eguchi, H., Gao, J., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.011 · Cited by 64
“risk of bias do not exist for systematic reviews of input data for health estimates (The GATHER Working Group, 2016), for burden of disease studies, of prevalence studies in general (Munn et al., 2014) and those of prevalence studies of occupational and/or environmental risk factors specifically (Krauth et al.”
BackgroundAmpt, F. H., Willenberg, L., Agius, P. A., Chersich, M., Luchters, S. M. F., & Lim, M. S. C. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021779 · Cited by 61
Nguyen, T. P., Guajardo, M. G. U., Sahle, B. W., Renzaho, A. M. N., & Slewa‐Younan, S. (2022) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-021-03664-7 · Cited by 86
“The JBI tool uses nine criteria to assess the methodological quality and determine how well a study has addressed potential biases in its design and analysis [23].”
MethodSubstance use and other mental health disorders among older prisoners
Haesen, S., Merkt, H., Imber, A., Elger, B. S., & Wangmo, T. (2018) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.10.004 · Cited by 61
Øverås, C. K., Johansson, M. S., de Campos, T. F., Ferreira, M. L., Natvig, B., Mork, P. J., & Hartvigsen, J. (2021) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03893-z · Cited by 65
Does Movement Change When Low Back Pain Changes? A Systematic Review
Wernli, K., Tan, J.-S., O’Sullivan, P., Smith, A. J., Campbell, A., & Kent, P. M. (2020) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9635 · Cited by 59
Sarma, K. M., Carthy, S. L., & Cox, K. M. (2022) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/cl2.1268 · Cited by 68
Lee, A. R. Y. B., Leong, I., Lau, G., Amanda, T. W., Ho, R., Ho, C. S. H., & Chen, M. Z. (2023) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.01.008 · Cited by 59
The prevalence of depressive symptoms among Arab adolescents: Findings from Jordan
Dardas, L. A., Silva, S. G., Smoski, M. J., Noonan, D., & Simmons, L. A. (2018) · Public Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/phn.12363 · Cited by 60
Curnow, E., Rush, R., Maciver, D., Górska, S., & Forsyth, K. (2019) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2019.1695741 · Cited by 58
“Additional Analyses Heterogeneity is expected in prevalence studies and can arise for a number of reasons including: different instruments used to determine the presence of a variable, geographical variation, and differences in the study population (Higgins, 2008; Munn et al., 2014).”
Prevalence and nature of fungi in root canal infections: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Persoon, I. F., Wim Crielaard, A., & Özok, A. R. (2016) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/iej.12730 · Cited by 57
“Proper risk of bias assessment tools for prevalence studies are rare and many of the items used to assess other study designs are not applicable (Munn et al. 2014).”
BackgroundPega, F., Norris, S., Backes, C., Bero, L., Descatha, A., Gagliardi, D., Godderis, L., Loney, T., Modenese, A., Morgan, R., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105039 · Cited by 44
“Two checklists (Munn et al., 2014; Hoy et al., 2012) for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of health outcomes were identified (Table 3).”
BackgroundMora-Salgueiro, J., García-Estela, A., Hogg, B., Angarita‐Osorio, N., Amann, B. L., Carlbring, P., Jiménez‐Múrcia, S., Pérez, V., & Colom, F. (2021) · Journal of Gambling Studies · doi:10.1007/s10899-021-09999-w · Cited by 56
“Risk‐of‐Bias Assessment In the assessment of the risk of bias, made by using a critical appraisal instrument (Munn et al. 2014), the mean of accomplished items was 5.”
MethodBarker, H., Shaw, P. J., Richards, B., Clegg, Z., & Smith, D. M. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131911099 · Cited by 71
“A framework based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist for descriptive/case series [50] was applied.”
MethodCui, H., Shen, S.-J., Chen, L., Fan, Z., Wen, Q., Xing, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Chen, J., La, B., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific · doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101133 · Cited by 56
“26 This tool consists of ten questions (Appendix 2 p 3), with answer options of “ Yes ” , “ No ” , or “ Unclear ” .”
What is the prevalence of anabolic‐androgenic steroid use among women? A systematic review
Piatkowski, T. M., Whiteside, B., Robertson, J., Henning, A., Lau, E. H. Y., & Dunn, M. (2024) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.16643 · Cited by 56
Internações das crianças brasileiras menores de cinco anos: revisão sistemática da literatura
Pedraza, D. F., & de Araújo, E. M. N. (2017) · Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde · doi:10.5123/s1679-49742017000100018 · Cited by 56
Systematic review of the changing pattern of the oral manifestations of HIV
El‐Howati, A., & Tappuni, A. R. (2018) · Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry · doi:10.1111/jicd.12351 · Cited by 56
Ramanathan, K. R., Yeo, N., Alexander, P. M. A., Raman, L., Barbaro, R. P., Tan, C. S., Schlapbach, L. J., & MacLaren, G. (2020) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03418-z · Cited by 56
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of outcomes after elective surgery for ulcerative colitis
Baker, D. M., Folan, A.-M., Lee, M. J., Jones, G. L., Brown, S. R., & Lobo, A. (2020) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/codi.15301 · Cited by 55
Yuan, M.-D., Wang, Z.-Q., Fei, L., & Zhong, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1016160 · Cited by 59
“We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (“JBI checklist” hereafter) to assess the level of RoB of included studies (21).”
MethodLee, A. R. Y. B., Yau, C. E., Low, C. E., Li, J., Ho, R., & Ho, C. S. H. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12051784 · Cited by 55
“To assess methodological quality and risk of bias of studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal checklist [19], which includes appraisal of the criteria for inclusion, measurement of condition, reporting of baseline characteristics, reporting of outcomes and appropriateness of the statistical analys…”
MethodMülder, D. T., Hahn, A. I., Huang, R. J., Zhou, M. J., Blake, B., Omofuma, O. O., Murphy, J. D., Gutiérrez‐Torres, D. S., Zauber, A. G., O’Mahony, J. F., et al. (2024) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.023 · Cited by 55
Incidence of influenza virus infection among pregnant women: a systematic review
Katz, M. A., Gessner, B. D., Johnson, J., Skidmore, B., Knight, M., Bhat, N., Marshall, H. S., Horne, D. J. D. L., Ortiz, J. R., & Fell, D. B. (2017) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1333-5 · Cited by 53
“Each of the three case series had a score of 6 out of 7 according to the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist [16].”
MethodLiu, Y., Sun, L., Xiong, Z., Sun, X., Zhang, S., Ma, J., & Han, C. (2017) · OncoTargets and Therapy · doi:10.2147/ott.s133082 · Cited by 54
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the enrolled studies.(34)”
MethodYong, J. N., Lim, W. H., Ng, C. H., Tan, D. J. H., Xiao, J., Tay, P. W. L., Lin, S. Y., Syn, N. L. X., Chew, N., Nah, B. K. Y., et al. (2021) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2021.11.014 · Cited by 55
Naya, K., Aikawa, G., Ouchi, A., Ikeda, M., Fukushima, A., Yamada, S., Kamogawa, M., Yoshihara, S., & Sakuramoto, H. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292108 · Cited by 59
“We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual [9] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement [10].”
MethodMorais, L. D. O., Macedo, E. V., Granjeiro, J. M., & Delgado, I. F. (2019) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1676699 · Cited by 54
Human fascioliasis in Africa: A systematic review
Dermauw, V., Muchai, J., Al-Kappany, Y. M., Castaneda, A. L. F., & Dorny, P. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261166 · Cited by 53
“Next, the study quality of population surveys was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [23].”
MethodAlzahrani, F., Alshahrani, N. Z., Sabah, A. A., Zarbah, A., Sabah, S. A., & Mamun, M. A. (2022) · PsyCh Journal · doi:10.1002/pchj.516 · Cited by 53
High Prevalence of Pain Sensitization in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression
Previtali, D., Capone, G., Marchettini, P., Candrian, C., Zaffagnini, S., & Filardo, G. (2022) · Cartilage · doi:10.1177/19476035221087698 · Cited by 53
Sader, M., Weston, A., Buchan, K., Kerr‐Gaffney, J., Gillespie‐Smith, K., Sharpe, H., & Duffy, F. (2025) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.24369 · Cited by 68
“Post-extraction and screening of literature, included publications were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist (Munn et al. 2014) for prevalence studies to examine the suitability and validity of included publications.”
Age and sex differences in hospitalisation of nursing home residents: a systematic review
Hoffmann, F., & Allers, K. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011912 · Cited by 54
“We decided to use the prevalence critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute.(21) However, this is more or less applied to have an overview on the study characteristics than to determine their methodological quality.”
MethodInfluentialAmbulance personnel: Systematic review of mental health symptoms.
Wagner, S. L., White, N. C., Regehr, C., White, M., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Carey, M. G., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., et al. (2020) · Traumatology An International Journal · doi:10.1037/trm0000251 · Cited by 56
“The review process was facilitated by the creation of a data extraction form questionnaire in DistillerSR, using Munn’s Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (Munn, Moola, Riitano, & Lisy, 2014).”
The Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Ethiopian Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ambachew, S., Endalamaw, A., Worede, A., Tegegne, Y., Melku, M., & Biadgo, B. (2020) · Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1155/2020/2701309 · Cited by 52
Adolescent Depression in the Arab Region: A Systematic Literature Review
Dardas, L. A., Bailey, D. E., & Simmons, L. A. (2016) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840.2016.1177760 · Cited by 52
“Ideally, researchers reporting prevalence estimates need to clarify the process they adopted to determine their sample size and to ensure that their study is sufficiently powered to produce a reliable estimate of the measure(s) of interest (Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialPrevalence of oral mucosal disorders during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bett, J. V. S., Batistella, E. Â., Melo, G., Munhoz, E. D. A., Silva, C. A. B., Guerra, E. N. S., Porporatti, A. L., & Canto, G. D. L. (2019) · Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine · doi:10.1111/jop.12831 · Cited by 52
Kent, K., Alston, L. V., Murray, S. L., Honeychurch, B., & Visentin, D. C. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19063235 · Cited by 52
Brucellosis in wildlife in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Simpson, G., Thompson, P. N., Saegerman, C., Marcotty, T., Letesson, J., Bolle, X. D., & Godfroid, J. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85441-w · Cited by 51
Garrido‐Miguel, M., Martínez‐Vizcaíno, V., Oliveira, A., Martínez-Andrés, M., Sequí‐Domínguez, I., Hernández-Castillejo, L. E., & Cavero‐Redondo, I. (2021) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-021-02540-0 · Cited by 54
Tang, S., Reily, N. M., Arena, A. F. A., Sheanoda, V., Han, J., Draper, B., Batterham, P. J., Mackinnon, A. J., & Christensen, H. M. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.01.054 · Cited by 51
Mohsen, S. T., Price, E. L., Chan, A., Hanna, T. P., Limacher, J. J., Nessim, C., Shiers-Hanley, J. E., Tron, V. A., Wright, F. C., & Drucker, A. M. (2023) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad404 · Cited by 52
Qiu, Y., Li, G., Wang, X., Liu, W., Li, X., Yang, Y., Wang, L., & Chen, L. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104755 · Cited by 51
Prevalence of low back pain in older Brazilians: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Leopoldino, A. A. O., Diz, J. B. M., Martins, V. T., Henschke, N., Pereira, L. S. M., Dias, R. C., & Oliveira, V. C. (2016) · Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.rbre.2016.03.011 · Cited by 51
written on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Cooperative Group, Liang, H., Pan, Z., Wang, W., Guo, C., Chen, D., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Tang, S., He, J., et al. (2018) · Journal of Thoracic Disease · doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.03.150 · Cited by 52
“Quality of each paper was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool (12).”
MethodLi, J., Brisson, C., Clays, E., Ferrario, M., Ivanov, I. D., Landsbergis, P. A., Leppink, N., Pega, F., Pikhart, H., Prüss‐Üstün, A., et al. (2018) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.022 · Cited by 51
“…reviews of input data for health 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., 2013; Mandrioli and…”
Eltom, K., Enan, K. A., Hussein, A. R. M. E., & Elkhidir, I. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2021.678945 · Cited by 51
Descatha, A., Sembajwe, G. N., Baer, M., Boccuni, F., Tecco, C. D., Duret, C., Evanoff, B., Gagliardi, D., Ivanov, I. D., Leppink, N., et al. (2018) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.016 · Cited by 52
Yong, J. N., Ng, C. H., Lee, C. W.-M., Chan, Y. Y., Tang, A. S. P., Teng, M. L. P., Tan, D. J. H., Lim, W. H., Quek, J., Xiao, J., et al. (2022) · Hepatology International · doi:10.1007/s12072-022-10319-6 · Cited by 51
“1 3 Quality assessment of included articles was done with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool [23].”
MethodPrimary Open Angle Glaucoma Prevalence in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Afflitto, G. G., Aiello, F., Cesareo, M., & Nucci, C. (2022) · Journal of Glaucoma · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002083 · Cited by 50
Golchin, N., Patel, A., Scheuring, J., Wan, V., Hofer, K., Collet, J., Elpers, B., & Lesperance, T. (2025) · BMC Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12890-025-03836-1 · Cited by 50
“Study quality was appraised using the tool developed specifically by the JBI for studies reporting prevalence in systematic reviews [25].”
Esan, O. B., Pearce, M. E., van Hecke, O., Roberts, N. W., Collins, D. R. J., Violato, M., McCarthy, N. D., Perera, R., & Fanshawe, T. R. (2016) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.12.006 · Cited by 52
Ranjbar, R., & Halaji, M. (2018) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5966-8 · Cited by 51
“Eventually, the studies that obtained more than 60% were included in this study [6].”
Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Children: A Meta-Analysis
Shaikh, N., Osio, V. A., Wessel, C. B., & Jeong, J. H. (2019) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.019 · Cited by 50
Baygi, F., Herttua, K., Jensen, O. C., Djalalinia, S., Ghorabi, A. M., Asayesh, H., & Qorbani, M. (2020) · BMC Endocrine Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12902-020-0489-6 · Cited by 50
Tramadol use and public health consequences in Iran: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Abadi, Y. R., Gholami, J., Amin‐Esmaeili, M., Safarcherati, A., Mojtabai, R., Ghadirzadeh, M. R., Rahimi, H., & Rahimi‐Movaghar, A. (2020) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15059 · Cited by 50
Uiterwijk, D., Stargatt, R., Humphrey, S., & Crowe, S. F. (2021) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09524-1 · Cited by 60
“The tool used to assess risk of bias was developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Munn et al., 2014) and recommended for use by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2019) in Australia.”
MethodCurnow, E., Rutherford, M., Maciver, D., Johnston, L., Prior, S., Boilson, M., Shah, P. J., Jenkins, N. D., & Meff, T. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288275 · Cited by 60
Breen, C., Ndlovu, N., McKeown, P. C., & Spillane, C. (2024) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-024-00956-6 · Cited by 49
Ruiz‐Campos, L., Gisbert, J. P., Ysamat, M., Arau, B., Loras, C., Esteve, M., & Fernández‐Bañares, F. (2018) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.15099 · Cited by 49
“Risk of bias for prevalence in the included papers was evaluated using the critical appraisal tool developed by Munn et al.(22) We selected this tool because it was developed for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.”
MethodInfluentialPrevalence of viral respiratory infections amongst asthmatics: Results of a meta-regression analysis
Feddema, J. J., & Claassen, E. (2020) · Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106020 · Cited by 48
Tan, D. J. H., Quek, S. X. Z., Yong, J. N., Suresh, A., Koh, K. X. M., Lim, W. H., Quek, J., Tang, A. S. P., Tan, C., Nah, B. K. Y., et al. (2022) · Clinical and Molecular Hepatology · doi:10.3350/cmh.2022.0136 · Cited by 56
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
