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 501–600 of 999
Tonia, T., Buitrago-Garcia, D., Peter, N. L., Mesa-Vieira, C., Li, T., Furukawa, T. A., Cipriani, A., Leucht, S., Low, N., & Salanti, G. (2023) · BMJ Mental Health · doi:10.1136/bmjment-2023-300694 · Cited by 26
A Critical Appraisal of the Chronic Pain Rate After Inguinal Hernia Repair
Gram‐Hanssen, A., Öberg, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2023) · Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery · doi:10.3389/jaws.2023.10972 · Cited by 25
“However, it should be noted that many such tools exist [60, 61], and it has previously been suggested that the JBI may not be an optimal tool, but it was included in the present study as it is likely the best available tool for this purpose [60, 61].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPrevalence of Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Migliavaca, C. B., Lazzarini, R., Stein, C., Escher, G. N., de Gaspari, C. N., dos Santos, H. W. G., Myers, D. E., Lemeshow, A. R., Pinheiro, M. R. T., Falavigna, M., et al. (2024) · Dermatitis · doi:10.1089/derm.2024.0165 · Cited by 31
Prevalence of myopia in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 14 countries
Moreira-Rosário, A., Lança, C., & Grzybowski, A. E. (2025) · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101319 · Cited by 28
“14 This checklist was speci fi cally designed to assess the methodological quality of prevalence studies and comprises nine questions covering various aspects of study design, sampling, data analysis, and reporting.”
Bahji, A., & Altomare, J. (2019) · Canadian Medical Education Journal · doi:10.36834/cmej.57019 · Cited by 44
Habebo, T. T., Pooyan, E. J., Mosadeghrad, A. M., Babore, G. O., & Dessu, B. K. (2020) · Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences · doi:10.4314/ejhs.v30i4.18 · Cited by 25
“The review process and quality appraisal: In this study, the quality of each article was assessed by applying a critical appraisal tool for use in the systematic review for prevalence studies (16).”
MethodMeffen, A., Houghton, J. S. M., Nickinson, A., Pepper, C., Sayers, R. D., & Gray, L. J. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053599 · Cited by 27
Public health risks associated with methadone in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abadi, Y. R., Gholami, J., Noroozi, A., Ansari, M., Baheshmat, S., Hamzehzadeh, M., Ghadirzadeh, M. R., Vahdani, B., Ekhtiari, H., Mojtabai, R., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103529 · Cited by 26
Nardello, L. C. L., Pinheiro, E. T., Gavini, G., Prado, L. C., Cazares, R. X. R., Gomes, B. P. F. D. A., & Macedo, M. C. S. (2022) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2022.01.016 · Cited by 26
Banerjee, A., Mowforth, O. D., Nouri, A., Budu, A., Newcombe, V., Kotter, M., & Davies, B. M. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2022.03.002 · Cited by 25
Obsa, M. S., Adem, A. O., Bancha, B., Gelgelu, T. B., Gemechu, A. D., Tila, M., Nugusse, M. A., Wosene, N. G., Gobena, N., Hamu, A., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Surgery Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijso.2022.100536 · Cited by 25
Benny, J., Porter, J. E., & Joseph, B. (2022) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.1470 · Cited by 25
“Nurse Education in Practice, 17, 8– 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.01.004 CASP UK.”
MethodInfluentialPur, D. R., Krance, S. H., Pucchio, A., Miranda, R. N., & Felfeli, T. (2022) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-022-02307-9 · Cited by 25
“Articles were further categorized according to OSDs or corneal disease type, statistical model, AI, or bioinformatics analyses performed.”
MethodNabavizadeh, S. S., Naseri, R., Sadeghi, E., Afshari, A., Ebrahimi, N. D., & Sadeghi, A. (2023) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.1495 · Cited by 30
“standardized quality appraisal checklist for prevalence studies.(14,15) The included studies were scored based on nine criteria: representativeness of the sample, appropriateness of the sample size and selection of participants, detailed report of the study subjects and settings, handling of missing data, and appropri…”
MethodKhadivzadeh, T., Abdollahpour, S., & Miri, H. H. (2019) · Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research · doi:10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_165_18 · Cited by 25
Reta, A., Mengist, A., & Tesfahun, A. (2019) · Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials · doi:10.1186/s12941-019-0324-y · Cited by 25
Kungwengwe, G., Gowthorpe, C., Ali, S. R., Warren, H., Drury, D. J., Ang, K.-L., Gibson, J. A. G., Dobbs, T. D., & Whitaker, I. S. (2024) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae011 · Cited by 26
Cheah, M. C. C., Crane, H., & George, J. (2025) · Hepatology International · doi:10.1007/s12072-025-10801-x · Cited by 30
“Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for prevalence studies [4].”
Health outcomes of beekeeping: a systematic review
Stanhope, J., Carver, S., & Weinstein, P. (2017) · Journal of Apicultural Research · doi:10.1080/00218839.2017.1291208 · Cited by 24
Prevalence of low back pain in different educational levels: a systematic review
Batista, A. A. D. S., Henschke, N., & Oliveira, V. C. (2017) · Fisioterapia em Movimento · doi:10.1590/1980-5918.030.s01.ar04 · Cited by 24
“Risk of bias Studies were assessed for methodological quality by one reviewer (AASP) using the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) [16].”
MethodInfluentialHuxley, A., Dalton, M., Tsui, Y. Y.-Y., & Hayhurst, K. P. (2018) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.1080/09687637.2018.1488949 · Cited by 25
“The tool considers: representativeness; appropriateness of recruitment; adequacy of sample size; description and reporting of study subjects and setting; adequacy of data; reliable and objective measurement; appropriate statistical analysis; and appropriate identification of subgroups accounting for confounding factor…”
BackgroundMethodAynalem, Y. A., Shiferaw, W. S., Akalu, T. Y., Wubetu, A. D., Assefa, H. K., & Habtewold, T. D. (2021) · International Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1155/2021/7478108 · Cited by 24
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool for use in systematic review for prevalence study was used for critical appraisal of studies [26].”
MethodOral Myofunctional and Articulation Disorders in Children with Malocclusions: A Systematic Review
Thijs, Z., Bruneel, L., Pauw, G. D., & Lierde, K. M. V. (2021) · Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica · doi:10.1159/000516414 · Cited by 24
“The working group of Munn et al. [45] developed an easy-to-use tool that, among other things, evaluates sample size, recruitment, and reliable data collection and analysis.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLee, A. R. Y. B., Wong, S. Y., & Tay, S. H. (2022) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines10050668 · Cited by 24
“Risk of Bias Assessment The methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist [19].”
MethodPrevalence of cutaneous Leishmaniasis in the Middle East: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Karami, M., Gorgani-Firouzjaee, T., & Chehrazi, M. (2022) · Pathogens and Global Health · doi:10.1080/20477724.2022.2133452 · Cited by 24
“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis study according to instructions from the Predefined Protocol Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) statements [14].”
MethodLynch, S., McDonnell, T., Leahy, D., Gavin, B. E., & McNicholas, F. (2022) · Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/ipm.2022.46 · Cited by 24
“The Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were also independently applied to evaluate quality of studies and risk of bias (Munn et al. 2014).”
MethodPierce, H., Perry, L., Chiarelli, P., & Gallagher, R. D. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12909 · Cited by 27
“All rights reserved for quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs In titute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Instrument (Munn et al. 2014).”
MethodNutritional deficiencies in homeless persons with problematic drinking: a systematic review
Ijaz, S., Jackson, J., Thorley, H., Porter, K., Fleming, C., Richards, A., BONNER, A. B., & Savović, J. (2017) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0564-4 · Cited by 27
Sousa, C. P. D. C., de Olinda, R. A., & Pedraza, D. F. (2016) · Sao Paulo Medical Journal · doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2015.0227121 · Cited by 24
Bhagavathula, A. S., Aldhaleei, W. A., Rahmani, J., & Khubchandani, J. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.06.24.20138891 · Cited by 25
“evaluate that the sample is representative of the target population) [30].”
BackgroundGuidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1
Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.3233/prm-230019 · Cited by 35
Maneerattanasak, S., Ngamprasertchai, T., Tun, Y. M., Ruenroengbun, N., Auewarakul, P., & Boonnak, K. (2024) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2024.107226 · Cited by 24
Prevalence of CVD Among Indian Adult Population: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Shannawaz, M., Rathi, I., Shah, N., Saeed, S., Chandra, A., & Singh, H. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22040539 · Cited by 23
“The JBI checklist contained 10 questions for each study [16,17].”
Epidemiologic estimates of hepatitis E virus infection in European countries
Horn, J., Hoodgarzadeh, M., Klett-Tammen, C. J., Mikolajczyk, R., Krause, G., & Ott, J. J. (2018) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2018.09.012 · Cited by 23
Prevention of tuberculosis in household members: estimates of children eligible for treatment
Hamada, Y., Glaziou, P., Sismanidis, C., & Getahun, H. (2019) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.18.218651 · Cited by 23
Klain, M., Nappi, C., Zampella, E., Cantoni, V., Green, R., Piscopo, L., Volpe, F., Manganelli, M., Caiazzo, E., Petretta, M., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05440-x · Cited by 23
Vancampfort, D., Schuch, F. B., Damme, T. V., Firth, J., Suetani, S., Stubbs, B., & Biesen, D. V. (2021) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.12949 · Cited by 23
Kulkarni, D., Wang, X., Sharland, E., Stansfield, D., Campbell, H. J., & Nair, H. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101267 · Cited by 23
Jibo, G. G., Raji, Y. E., Salawudeen, A., Nordin, S. A., Mansor, R., & Jamaluddin, T. Z. M. T. (2022) · One Health · doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100417 · Cited by 23
“Each article that meets the study inclusion and exclusion criteria was subjected to a quality assessment using the appraisal instrument developed for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence [13].”
MethodPrevalence of idiopathic scoliosis in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mousavi, L., Seidi, F., Minoonejad, H., & Nikouei, F. (2022) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001312 · Cited by 23
“Due to significant heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used.”
Vickers, M. L., Choi, Y. K., Eriksson, L., Polyakova-Nelson, Y., Jokovic, Z., Parker, S., Moudgil, V., Dean, J. A., Debattista, J., & Scott, J. G. (2022) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbac114 · Cited by 26
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of neuropathic pain associated with coronavirus disease 2019
Stefano, G. D., Falco, P., Galosi, E., Pietro, G. D., Leone, C. M., & Truini, A. (2022) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.2055 · Cited by 23
Epidemiology of pediatric schistosomiasis in hard-to-reach areas and populations: a scoping review
Isaiah, P. M., Palmeirim, M. S., & Steinmann, P. (2023) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-023-01088-x · Cited by 23
“Quality assessment of identified articles was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool.”
MethodInfluentialAnsarifar, E., Riahi, S. M., Tasara, T., Sadighara, P., & Zeinali, T. (2023) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-023-02879-w · Cited by 23
“Quality assessment of the eligible studies were performed by Joanna Briggs Institute [129].”
MethodHadizadeh, H., Salehi, M., Khoramnejad, S., Vosoughi, K., & Rezaei, N. (2016) · Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · doi:10.1111/pai.12685 · Cited by 23
“(8) Critical Appraisal tool for systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.”
MethodHospitalization at the end of life among nursing home residents with dementia: a systematic review
Hoffmann, F., Strautmann, A., & Allers, K. (2019) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0462-1 · Cited by 26
Depression and anxiety in policework: a systematic review
Wagner, S. L., White, N. C., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., Regehr, C., White, M., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Carey, M. G., Corneil, W., et al. (2019) · Policing An International Journal · doi:10.1108/pijpsm-03-2019-0040 · Cited by 24
Dental caries in South American Indigenous peoples: A systematic review
Soares, G. H., Pereira, N. F., Biazevic, M. G. H., Braga, M. M., & Michel‐Crosato, E. (2018) · Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/cdoe.12436 · Cited by 22
Jehu, D. A., Davis, J. C., & Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033602 · Cited by 22
Kouchaki, E., Namdari, M., Khajeali, N., Etesam, F., & Asgarian, F. S. (2020) · Social Work in Public Health · doi:10.1080/19371918.2020.1810839 · Cited by 22
The Prevalence of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis in Hospitalized Patients in China
Wei, M., Yang, D., Wu, L., Chen, W., Chen, Y., & Fu, Q. (2020) · Advances in Skin & Wound Care · doi:10.1097/01.asw.0000695764.47424.aa · Cited by 22
Prevalence of short stature among children in China: A systematic review
Li, F., Liu, K., Zhao, Q., Chen, J., Liu, L., Xie, Q.-M., & Yang, J. Y. (2021) · Pediatric Investigation · doi:10.1002/ped4.12233 · Cited by 22
Drug-related problems in Ethiopian public healthcare settings: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Ayele, Y., & Tesfaye, Z. T. (2021) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121211009728 · Cited by 22
Kammer, P. V., Moro, J. D. S., Soares, J. P., Massignan, C., Phadraig, C. M. G., & Bolan, M. (2022) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.13315 · Cited by 22
Matthews, L. R., Alden, L. E., Wagner, S. L., Carey, M. G., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Randall, C., Regehr, C., White, M., Buys, N. J., et al. (2022) · Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2021.09.010 · Cited by 25
Chang, Y., Lv, G., Liu, C., Huang, E., & Luo, B. (2022) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1080/14760584.2023.2150169 · Cited by 22
“[14] Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, et al.”
BackgroundMethodShigellosis in Southeast Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Muzembo, B. A., Kitahara, K., Mitra, D., Ohno, A., Khatiwada, J., Dutta, S., & Miyoshi, S. (2023) · Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease · doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2023.102554 · Cited by 22
Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews
Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.16100 · Cited by 29
Estimativa de prevalência de doença de Chagas crônica nos municípios brasileiros
Laporta, G. Z., Lima, M. M., da Costa, V. M., Neto, M. M. D. L., Palmeira, S. L., Rodovalho, S., & López, M. A. A. (2024) · Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública · doi:10.26633/rpsp.2024.28 · Cited by 22
Bitta, M. A., Kariuki, S. M., Mwita, C. C., Gwer, S., Mwai, L., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2017) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.10658.2 · Cited by 22
The Missing Millions: Uncovering the Burden of Covid‐19 Cases and Deaths in the African Region
McKay, T., Robinson, R. S., Musungu, S., Padi‐Adjirackor, N. A., & Angotti, N. (2024) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12608 · Cited by 21
Wang, M., Liang, H., Yan, Y., Bian, R., Huang, W., Zhang, X., & Nie, J. (2024) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2024.2343192 · Cited by 21
Mekonen, H., Negesse, A., Dessie, G., Desta, M., Mihiret, G. T., Tarik, Y. D., Kitaw, T. M., & Getaneh, T. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087218 · Cited by 26
“Not applicable, since a systematic review and meta-analysis study.”
BackgroundNeonatal Colonization With Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Beaumont, A., Kermorvant‐Duchemin, E., Breurec, S., & Huynh, B.-T. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.41596 · Cited by 21
Motivations for Self-Harm in Young People and Their Correlates: A Systematic Review
Tang, S., Hoye, A. M., Slade, A., Tang, B., Holmes, G., Fujimoto, H., Zheng, W., Ravindra, S., Christensen, H. M., & Calear, A. L. (2025) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-024-00511-5 · Cited by 21
“The quality of included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists for Cohort and Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (Munn et al., 2014; see Online Resource 2).”
Gao, Y., Xin, L., Zhang, Y.-T., Guo, X., Meng, Q.-Q., Li, Z., & Liao, Z. (2020) · Gut and Liver · doi:10.5009/gnl19345 · Cited by 21
“Two independent authors (Y.G. and X.R.G.) used the critical appraisal tool of Munn et al., 13 which was designed for systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data, to assess the quality of included studies (Supplementary File 2).”
Rajabi, A., Sharafi, H., & Alavian, S. M. (2021) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-020-00441-9 · Cited by 22
“Two independent investigators (AR and HSH) assessed the quality of the studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools for observational studies [40] and a critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies [41].”
MethodPhotophobia Associated with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Merezhinskaya, N., Mallia, R. K., Park, D., Millian-Morell, L., & Barker, F. M. (2021) · Optometry and Vision Science · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001757 · Cited by 21
Heady, N., Watkins, A. J., John, A. M., & Hutchings, H. A. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-01923-6 · Cited by 25
“All appraisal tools will address the bias in design, conduct and analysis [76].”
MethodAndayeshgar, B., Janatolmakan, M., Soroush, A., Azizi, S. M., & Khatony, A. (2022) · Sleep Science and Practice · doi:10.1186/s41606-022-00074-w · Cited by 26
Pega, F., Momen, N. C., Bero, L. A., & Whaley, P. (2022) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/s12940-022-00878-4 · Cited by 21
“2014 [6] A questionnaire intended to facilitate critical appraisal of prevalence studies in a systematic review.”
BackgroundRamezanifar, S., Beyrami, S., Mehrifar, Y., Ramezanifar, E., Soltanpour, Z., Namdari, M., & Gharari, N. (2022) · Safety and Health at Work · doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2022.10.005 · Cited by 21
“In order to present this study and evaluate the quality of the articles, The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 [19] and The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist [20] were used, respectively.”
MethodLau, G., Ang, J. Y., Kim, N., Gabbe, B. J., Mitra, B., Dietze, P., Reeder, S. C., Scott, D. A., & Beck, B. (2023) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380221150951 · Cited by 20
“…was completed using a customized form which captured the following information: Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies, which is a validated tool specifically designed to assess prevalence data across various study designs (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodSocial Media Use and Depression in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Guzman, A. A., Brecht, M., Doering, L. V., Macey, P. M., & Mentes, J. C. (2023) · Research in Gerontological Nursing · doi:10.3928/19404921-20230220-05 · Cited by 25
Alemayehu, E., Fiseha, T., Gedefie, A., Tesfaye, N. A., Ebrahim, H., Ebrahim, E., Fiseha, M., Bisetegn, H., Mohammed, O., Tilahun, M., et al. (2023) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-023-08237-5 · Cited by 23
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality appraisal tool adapted for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of the included studies [19].”
MethodBoadu, I., Manu, A., Aryeetey, R., Kesse, K. A., Abdulai, M., Acheampong, E., & Akparibo, R. (2023) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0002448 · Cited by 21
Prevalence of dry eye during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ji, H., Yang, Y., Lu, Y., Kong, X., Yang, G., Liu, J., Yang, Y., Wang, X., & Ma, X. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288523 · Cited by 21
“Two researchers independently assessed the quality of studies included in the final analysis using the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Tool [16].”
MethodFan, H., Han, Z., Gong, X., Wu, Y., Fu, Y., Zhu, T., & Li, H. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079273 · Cited by 21
Association Between Traumatic Brain Injury and Dementia in Veterans: A Rapid Systematic Review
Peterson, K., Veazie, S., Bourne, D. S., & Anderson, J. (2020) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000549 · Cited by 21
The Health Literacy Status and Its Role in Interventions in Iran: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis
Sany, S. B. T., Doosti, H., Mahdizadeh, M., Orooji, A., & Peyman, N. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18084260 · Cited by 21
“The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool [36], Downs and Black quality assessment scores [38], and JBI critical appraisal checklist [39] to examine the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized intervention, and cross-sectional studies, respectively.”
MethodPetersson, N. B., Hansen, M. H., Hjelmborg, J., Instenes, I., Christoffersen, A. S., Kristensen, K. L., Schmidt, H., Riber, L. P., Norekvål, T. M., & Borregaard, B. (2024) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvae066 · Cited by 20
Ambachew, S., Eshetie, S., Geremew, D., Endalamaw, A., & Melku, M. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0976-x · Cited by 20
Occult hepatitis B virus infection in Sudan: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Eltom, K., Albeely, A., Hussein, A. R. M. E., Elkhidir, I. M., & Enan, K. A. (2020) · JGH Open · doi:10.1002/jgh3.12411 · Cited by 20
Xu, Y. M., Jia, Y., Zhang, Q., Du, Y., He, Y., & Zheng, A. (2020) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.11.010 · Cited by 20
Validation of growth standards and growth references: A review of literature
Marume, A., Archary, M., & Mahomed, S. (2021) · Journal of Child Health Care · doi:10.1177/13674935211024816 · Cited by 20
“The Joana Briggs Institute tools for cross-sectional analytic, cohort, and control trials were used to critically appraise each study (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodBody dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in the orthodontic and orthognathic setting: A systematic review
Dons, F., Mulier, D., Maleux, O., Shaheen, E., & Politis, C. (2021) · Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2021.10.015 · Cited by 23
Dhana, A. V., Hamada, Y., Kengne, A. P., Kerkhoff, A. D., Broger, T., Denkinger, C. M., Rangaka, M. X., Gupta‐Wright, A., Fielding, K., Wood, R., et al. (2022) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.05.010 · Cited by 22
Batistella, E. Â., GONDAK, R. D. O., Rivero, E. R. C., Warnakulasuriya, S., Guerra, E. N. S., Porporatti, A. L., & Canto, G. D. L. (2022) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04719-z · Cited by 20
“8 to 100% yes answers to the JBI checklist [13].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCiciulla, D., Soriano, V. X., McWilliam, V. L., Koplin, J. J., & Peters, R. L. (2023) · The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2023.04.010 · Cited by 20
Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews
Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-023-08304-x · Cited by 24
Abbasi, F., Almukhtar, M., Naghibi, A. F., Alizadeh, F., Moghadam, K. B., Tadi, M. J., Ghadimi, S., Bagheri, K. H., Babaei, H., Bijani, M. H., et al. (2023) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102327 · Cited by 20
Wang, X., Li, Q., Li, Y., Guo, S., Li, S., Zhou, X., Guo, J., Bergquist, R. N., Juma, S., Zhang, J., et al. (2024) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-024-01233-0 · Cited by 20
“The quality of the selected studies was assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence critical appraisal Tool [32].”
MethodWhat a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus but higher incidence of dyslipidemia in smokers
Helvacı, M. R., Özer, A., Ceylan, A., Zengin, M., Abyad, A., & Pocock, L. (2023) · World Family Medicine Journal/Middle East Journal of Family Medicine · doi:10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256052 · Cited by 19
Wang, L., Huang, J., Hu, H., & Feng, X. (2025) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.16596 · Cited by 19
The epidemiology of maternal mental health in Africa: a systematic review
Abajobir, A. A., Sidze, E., Wainaina, C., Gerbaba, M. J., & Wekesah, F. M. (2025) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-025-01563-4 · Cited by 25
Laver, K., Spargo, C., Saggese, A., Ong, V., Crotty, M., Lovato, N., Stevens, D. J., & Vakulin, A. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2020.03.002 · Cited by 20
Hassani, N. S., Shojaee, A., Khodaprast, Z., Sepahvandi, R., Shahrestanaki, E., & Rastad, H. (2020) · Journal of Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1177/0885066620981015 · Cited by 19
“Quality assessment was performed by 2 researchers using the Newcastle– Ottawa scale (NOS), containing 9 items, for the cohort studies and using the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI), containing 10 items, for the cross-sectional studies.(5) In Newcastle– Ottawa scale, the total score ranged from 0 to 9 an…”
MethodEusebi, L. H., Telese, A., Cirota, G. G., Haidry, R. J., Zagari, R. M., Bazzoli, F., & Ford, A. C. (2021) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.16321 · Cited by 19
Prevalence of Refractive Errors among Children in Saudi Arabia: A Systemic Review
Alghamdi, W. (2021) · The Open Ophthalmology Journal · doi:10.2174/1874364102115010089 · Cited by 19
Jacobs, H., Seeber, G. H., Allers, K., & Hoffmann, F. (2021) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04600-2 · Cited by 21
“It includes nine items [32] and is very flexible across different study designs [34].”
Background
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
