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 601–700 of 999
Bott, S., Ruiz-Celis, A. P., Mendoza, J. A., & Guedes, A. C. (2021) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007063 · Cited by 19
Trevisani, V. F. M., Pugliesi, A., Pasoto, S. G., Lopes, M. L. L., Guedes, L. K. N., Miyamoto, S. T., Fernandes, M. L. M. S., Fialho, S. C. D. M. S., Pinheiro, A. C., dos Santos, L. C., et al. (2022) · Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia · doi:10.1186/s42358-022-00248-1 · Cited by 19
“Risk of bias was assessed (Additional file 2) using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [8].”
MethodPrevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians
Chia, M. A., Taylor, J. R., Stuart, K. V., Khawaja, A. P., Foster, P. J., Keane, P. A., & Turner, A. W. (2022) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.07.024 · Cited by 22
Gurung, A., Khatiwada, B., Kayastha, B., Parsekar, S. S., Mistry, S. K., & Yadav, U. N. (2022) · Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health · doi:10.1016/j.cegh.2022.101152 · Cited by 24
Endeshaw, A. S., Kumie, F. T., Bayu, H. T., Ayalew, S. B., & Gete, B. C. (2022) · Annals of Medicine and Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104810 · Cited by 19
“Studies were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool for systematic reviews of prevalence studies [50].”
MethodKhajezadeh, M., Mohseni, F., Khaledi, A., & Firoozeh, A. (2023) · European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology · doi:10.1556/1886.2022.00023 · Cited by 19
Kruger, H. S., Visser, M., Malan, L., Zandberg, L., Wicks, M., Ricci, C., & Faber, M. (2023) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980023001994 · Cited by 22
“…reported data, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal scoring system for studies reporting prevalence data proposed by Munn et al. (9) The reviewers scored the studies with a ‘ Yes ’ answer to each question to receive a score of 1, while a ‘ No ’ answer received a score of 0, with…”
MethodEpidemiology of diabetes mellitus in Pakistan: a systematic review protocol
Hasan, S. U., & Siddiqui, M. A. R. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079513 · Cited by 19
“22 The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool will be used to assess the certainty of evidence and this evaluation will be conducted by two independent reviewers.”
MethodHailemariam, T. G., Nathan, S., Seifu, C. N., & Rawstorne, P. (2019) · AIDS Care · doi:10.1080/09540121.2019.1619667 · Cited by 19
Waller, K. M. J., Mata, N. L. D. L., Kelly, P. J., Ramachandran, V., Rawlinson, W. D., Wyburn, K., & Webster, A. C. (2019) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.50315 · Cited by 19
Bhagavathula, A. S., Clark, C. C. T., Sharma, R., Chhabra, M., Vidyasagar, K., & Chattu, V. K. (2021) · Health Promotion Perspectives · doi:10.34172/hpp.2021.19 · Cited by 19
“Methodological quality and risk of bias of each study were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklist for critical appraisal, 57 which comprises a nine-item checklist to evaluate whether the sample is representative of the target population.”
MethodAmsalu, E. T., Kefale, B., Muche, A., Fentaw, Z., Dewau, R., Chanie, M. G., Melaku, M. S., Yalew, M., Arefaynie, M., Bitew, G., et al. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91821-z · Cited by 19
Deep learning in voice analysis for diagnosing vocal cord pathologies: a systematic review
Tessler, I., Primov-Fever, A., Soffer, S., Anteby, R., Gecel, N. A., Livneh, N., Alon, E. E., Zimlichman, E., & Klang, E. (2024) · European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · doi:10.1007/s00405-023-08362-6 · Cited by 18
“…tools evaluated quality assessment and risk of bias: (a) the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2), using signaling questions tailored for AI research [13]; (b) the modified Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for cross-sectional studies [14].”
Wang, W., Zhang, X., Wei, H., Wang, S., Yang, Y., He, L., Zhang, K., Lu, Y., Zhang, Z., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14182738 · Cited by 18
“We employed the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool in combination with the enhanced key assessment tool (high-quality item rating scale-RRB) developed by Munn et al. to modify the systematic review approach for this study and assess the risk of bias in the included studies [17].”
MethodNiu, Y., Sun, S., Wang, Y., Chen, L., Shao, Y., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Nature and Science of Sleep · doi:10.2147/nss.s525547 · Cited by 21
“11 This consists of nine items, namely sample frame, sample size, and description of the sample.”
Poletto, A. G., Mello, F. W., Melo, G., & Rivero, E. R. C. (2020) · Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine · doi:10.1111/jop.13073 · Cited by 18
Cenko, B., Ozgo, E., Rapaport, P., & Mukadam, N. (2021) · Psychiatry International · doi:10.3390/psychiatryint2020015 · Cited by 18
The burden of sleep disordered breathing in children with sickle cell disease
Liguoro, I., Arigliani, M., Tan, H., & Gupta, A. K. (2021) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/ppul.25632 · Cited by 19
Assies, R., Snik, I., Kumwenda, M., Chimalizeni, Y. F., Langton, J., van Woensel, J. B. M., Doctor, A., & Calis, J. C. J. (2022) · Journal of Tropical Pediatrics · doi:10.1093/tropej/fmac053 · Cited by 18
“Measurement and selection bias was assessed by reporting main study population and microbiological diagnostic capacity [14, 15].”
MethodCOVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Level in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Sahile, A. T., Gizaw, G. D., Mgutshini, T., Gebremariam, Z. M., & Bekele, G. E. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1155/2022/2313367 · Cited by 18
Marr, C., Webb, R. T., Yee, N. Y. L., & Dean, K. (2023) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380221145732 · Cited by 18
“…sample size, appropriate description and reporting of study subjects and setting, adequate data coverage of the identified sample, valid and reliable measurement, appropriate statistical analysis, and identification and accounting for confounding factors or subgroups (see Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundIslam, M. M., Khanom, H., Farag, E., Mim, Z. T., Naidoo, P., Mkhize‐Kwitshana, Z. L., Tibbo, M., Islam, A., Magalhães, R. J. S., & Hassan, M. M. (2023) · One Health · doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100561 · Cited by 18
“The risk of bias assessment was conducted using ten questions with the answer of “ yes ” , “ no ” , “ unclear ” , and “ not applicable ” following the modified version of the critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies reported previously [22,23].”
Impact of war-associated factors on spread of sexually transmitted infections: a systemic review
Kvasnevska, Y., Faustova, M. O., Voronova, K., Басараб, Я. О., & Lopatina, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366600 · Cited by 18
Public Support for Tobacco Endgame Policies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Kim, H., GARTNER, C. E., Edwards, R., Puljević, C., Morphett, K., Kim, D. H., Chun, H.-R., Ekdahl, M., & Kang, H. (2024) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntae149 · Cited by 20
“[16] The purpose of a quality appraisal was to identify how well the assessment was conducted, rather than how they were reported.”
BackgroundPrevalence of hypertension among patients aged 50 and older living with human immunodeficiency virus
Dakum, P., Kayode, G. A., Abimiku, A., Avong, Y. K., Okuma, J. O., Onyemata, E. J., Ali, T., Adekanmbi, V., & Uthman, O. A. (2019) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000015024 · Cited by 18
“We assessed the quality of the selected studies using the critical appraisal tool for evaluating the qualities of papers included in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.([24]) The quality of articles included in the analysis were assessed for the risk of bias in 7 domains: representative sample, part…”
MethodRostami, A., Riahi, S. M., Esfandyari, S., Habibpour, H., Mollalo, A., Mirzapour, A., Behniafar, H., MohammadiMoghadam, S., Kyvanani, N. A., Aghaei, S., et al. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117790 · Cited by 18
So, W. Z., Tan, F. L., Tan, D. J. H., Ng, C. H., Yong, J. N., Syn, N. L. X., Tang, A. S. P., Wong, R. C.-C., Lin, W., Tan, E. X. X., et al. (2021) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2021.11.011 · Cited by 19
Kalniunas, A., James, K. R., & Pappa, S. (2024) · BMJ Mental Health · doi:10.1136/bmjment-2024-301184 · Cited by 21
“21 Depending on the study design, we used three different JBI screening tools tailored for analytical cross-sectional studies, case-control studies and cohort studies.”
Meta‐Analysis: Utilisation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance
Tang, N. S. Y., Gunalan, S. Z., Ong, C. E. Y., Koh, B., Tham, E. K. J., Lim, R. Y., Tan, D. J. H., Syn, N. L. X., Ng, C. H., Muthiah, M. D., et al. (2025) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.70403 · Cited by 18
“The risk of bias and quality assessment of included articles was evaluated using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool [20] Checklist for Prevalence Studies, which consists of nine items.”
Worku, S. A., Mittiku, Y. M., & Wubetu, A. D. (2020) · Contraception and Reproductive Medicine · doi:10.1186/s40834-020-00121-w · Cited by 17
BULLYING E MECANISMOS DE DESENGAJAMENTO MORAL: REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DA LITERATURA COM METANÁLISE
de Oliveira, W. A., da Silva, J. L., Risk, E. N., Komatsu, A. V., Silva, M. A. I., & dos Santos, M. A. (2021) · Psicologia Escolar e Educacional · doi:10.1590/2175-35392021223346 · Cited by 17
“O Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument contempla 10 questões para avaliar a qualidade metodológica de estudos que apresentam dados de prevalência (Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSumi, Y., Masuda, F., Kadotani, H., & Ozeki, Y. (2022) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101684 · Cited by 19
Bobrovitz, N., Noël, K. C., Li, Z., Cao, C., Deveaux, G., Selemon, A., Clifton, D. A., Yanes‐Lane, M., Yan, T., & Arora, R. K. (2023) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1620 · Cited by 18
“, presence or absence of key study safeguards against systematic error).(13) The tool has been validated by multiple investigator groups and compares favorably to other tools in terms of content validity, construct validity, and usability.”
MethodA bright side of adversity? A systematic review on posttraumatic growth among refugees
von Arcosy, C., Padilha, M., Mello, G. L., Vilete, L. M. P., Luz, M. P., Mendlowicz, M. V., Junior, O. D. D. S., & Berger, W. (2023) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.3242 · Cited by 18
Karami, M., Gorgani-Firouzjaee, T., Rostami-Mansoor, S., & Shirafkan, H. (2023) · Ocular Immunology and Inflammation · doi:10.1080/09273948.2023.2190801 · Cited by 17
Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews
Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · JBJS Reviews · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.23.00077 · Cited by 24
Post‐prostatectomy anastomotic stenosis: systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic treatment
Delchet, O., Nourredine, M., Serrano, A., Morel-Journel, N., Carnicelli, D., Ruffion, A., & Neuville, P. (2023) · British Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/bju.16141 · Cited by 17
“Two reviewers (P.N., M.N.) assessed the risk of bias independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [18].”
MethodLiang, S., Li, J., Chen, Z., Li, Y., Hao, F., & Cai, W. (2023) · Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.1089/jwh.2022.0482 · Cited by 17
“22,23 The checklist consists of nine questions, with response options of yes, no, unclear, or not applicable.”
Gut microbiota in parasite-transmitting gastropods
Li, P., Hong, J., Yuan, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, M., Ding, T., Wu, Z., Sun, X., & Lin, D. (2023) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-023-01159-z · Cited by 18
“We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles [25].”
MethodHøgenhaug, S. S., Kongerslev, M., & Telléus, G. K. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1291155 · Cited by 20
“Each included study was rated for each question and given 1 point if the study fulfilled a question and 0 points if the question was rated no, unclear, or not applicable (Munn et al., 2014; DeLang et al., 2019).”
BackgroundObstetric risk factors for levator ani muscle avulsion: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wong, K. W., Okeahialam, N. A., Thakar, R., & Sultan, A. H. (2024) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.02.044 · Cited by 17
Ho, J. S. Y., Ho, J. S. Y., Yeo, L. L. L., Kong, W. K. F., Li, T. Y., Tan, B. Y., Chan, M. Y., Sharma, V. K., Poh, K. K., & Sia, C. (2024) · Singapore Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/singaporemedj.smj-2022-143 · Cited by 18
“…AF for >30 s on cardiac monitoring or >10 s on 12‑lead ECG. [8] Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal check list for case reports and case series, [9] Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, [10] Risk Of Bias In Non‑randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS‑”
MethodTeo, A. Y. T., Yau, C. E., Low, C. E., Pereira, J. V., Ng, J. Y. X., Soong, T. K., Lo, Y. T., & Yang, V. S. (2024) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102870 · Cited by 17
“61”
Low, C. E., Tan, S. Y. P., Loh, A. J. W., Yu, J., Ong, J. Z. E., Loh, C. Y. L., Yau, C. E., Lee, A. R. Y. B., & Ho, C. S. H. (2024) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2024.805 · Cited by 17
“An I 2 of <30% indicated low heterogeneity between studies, 30 – 60% showed moderate heterogeneity and >60% indicated substantial heterogeneity.”
InfluentialShiadeh, M. N., Esfandyari, S., Ashrafmansouri, M., Mirzapour, A., Taghipour, A., Spotin, A., Arefkhah, N., Gamble, R., Safa, A., & Rostami, A. (2020) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104549 · Cited by 17
Taheri, L., Gheiasi, S. F., Taher, M., Basirinezhad, M. H., Shaikh, Z. A., & Nayeri, N. D. (2021) · Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing · doi:10.1080/24694193.2021.1930288 · Cited by 17
“The total score of quality assessment for each study is 8, 8, and 10, respectively (Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSaffian, S. M., Jamil, N. A., Tahir, N. A. M., & Hatah, E. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1050745 · Cited by 17
“After considering various quality assessment tools for prevalence studies (38), the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool, 2014 (39, 40) was used for quality assessment.”
MethodKasten, A. P. D. S., da Rosa, B. N., Schmit, E. F. D., Noll, M. A., & Candotti, C. T. (2017) · Journal of Human Growth and Development · doi:10.7322/jhgd.127684 · Cited by 17
Garrido‐Miguel, M., Cavero‐Redondo, I., Álvarez‐Bueno, C., Rodríguez‐Artalejo, F., Aznar, L. M., Ruiz, J. R., & Martínez‐Vizcaíno, V. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018241 · Cited by 17
Paulson, D. R., Ingleshwar, A., Theis-Mahon, N., Lin, L.-F., & John, M. T. (2024) · Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102078 · Cited by 14
Prevalence of depression among medical students in Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Mekonnen, C. K., Abate, H. K., Beko, Z. W., Zegeye, A. F., & Azagew, A. W. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312281 · Cited by 18
Factors affecting nurses' genetic nursing competency: A systematic review
Cao, Y., Yu, G., Chappell, K., & Zhou, W. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104304 · Cited by 18
Prevalence of anxiety disorders in Latin America: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Errázuriz, A., Avello-Vega, D., Passi‐Solar, Á., Torres, R., Bacigalupo, F., Crossley, N. A., Undurraga, E. A., & Jones, P. B. (2025) · The Lancet Regional Health - Americas · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2025.101057 · Cited by 23
“The quality of each study was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute ’ s (JBI) appraisal tool 32 (Supplementary Method S4).”
Prescription drugs use during pregnancy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ayele, Y., Mekuria, A. N., Tola, A., Mishore, K. M., & Bonja, F. (2020) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/2050312120935471 · Cited by 16
Ullah, E., Albrett, J., Khan, O., Matthews, C., Perry, I., GholamHosseini, H., & Lu, J. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10955 · Cited by 16
“studies [23, 25, 26, 27] that estimated the workload involved in measuring vital signs without reporting mean time per set of vital signs, hence we are unable to make any comparison with them.”
BackgroundBouri, F., Hantouly, A. T., Alzobi, O. Z. A., Toubasi, A. A., Kayali, H., Fuad, M., Muneer, M., Hagert, E. M., & Ibrahim, A. (2023) · Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online · doi:10.1016/j.jhsg.2023.03.014 · Cited by 16
“Rhee et al(13) Case series IV 27 (17) 60 mos (12 monthse16 y) 11 No Yes Subtotal 12: moderate-to-severe lunate fragmentation Partial: 4 minimal fragmentation III and IV 5 Persistent pain 2 Complex regional pain syndrome 11 Progression of radioscaphoid and/or mid-carpal arthritis 1 Radial styloidectomy, screw removal,…”
BackgroundZhou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Du, S. (2024) · Chinese Medical Journal · doi:10.1097/cm9.0000000000002884 · Cited by 16
“…assessed by two reviewers (Zhou and Zhang) using a tool proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute for critical appraisal of prevalence studies [19] and an adapted version of the tool [20] [Supplementary Material, http:// links.lww.com/CM9/B915] based on previous literature regarding quality…”
MethodThe problem of calculating the prevalence of sexual dysfunction: a meta-analysis attending gender
Ramírez-Santos, J., Cañadas, D. C., Carreño, T. P., Lozano‐Paniagua, D., & Soriano, B. J. N. (2024) · Sexual Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qead058 · Cited by 17
Vaccination coverage among people who inject drugs: A systematic review
Price, O. H., Swanton, R., Grebely, J., Hajarizadeh, B., Webb, P., Peacock, A., Dore, G. J., Cowie, B. C., Vickerman, P. T., & Degenhardt, L. J. (2024) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104382 · Cited by 16
Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., Hu, J., Luo, S., Zhou, Y., Tang, X., Yan, R., Deng, X., & He, H. (2024) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2024.2341454 · Cited by 16
“20 Each criterion can be assessed as “Yes,” “No,” “Unclear,” or “Not applicable” (Supplementary Table S3).”
Rodrigues, B. V., Lopes, P. C., Mello‐Moura, A. C. V., Fraile, J. F., & Veiga, N. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12202033 · Cited by 16
“A systematic review of evidence is a well-accepted method committed to being ideal; it can furnish a summary of the literature to notify decision makers [15].”
MethodGraham, H., Jahan, E., Subhi, R., Azrin, F., Maher, J. R., Miller, J., Rahman, A. E., & Lam, F. (2025) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(24)00469-8 · Cited by 17
Prevalence of vulvovaginal candidiasis in Brazil: A systematic review
Carvalho, G. C., Prata, R. A., Araújo, V. H. S., Sábio, R. M., de Carvalho, L. R., Bauab, T. M., Corrêa, I., & Chorilli, M. (2021) · Medical Mycology · doi:10.1093/mmy/myab034 · Cited by 20
Rostami, A., Riahi, S. M., Sagha, S. A., Taghipour, A., Sepidarkish, M., Mohammadnia‐Afrouzi, M., Ebrahimpour, S., Hotez, P. J., Gamble, R., & Gasser, R. B. (2021) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms9102034 · Cited by 16
“To evaluate the quality of the methodologies used in studies, we employed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence critical appraisal tool [28].”
MethodLau, G., Ang, J. Y., Kim, N., Gabbe, B. J., Mitra, B., Dietze, P., Reeder, S. C., & Beck, B. (2022) · Injury Prevention · doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2021-044513 · Cited by 16
Bonetti, M. A., Costantino, A., Afflitto, G. G., Carbonaro, R., Amendola, F., Catapano, S., Cottone, G., Borelli, F., & Vaienti, L. (2022) · American Journal of Otolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103517 · Cited by 17
Varicella zoster virus-associated morbidity and mortality in Africa: a systematic review protocol
Hussey, H. S., Abdullahi, L. H., Collins, J. E., Muloiwa, R., Hussey, G. D., & Kagina, B. M. N. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010213 · Cited by 16
“From the several quality assessment tools available, we chose to adapt the tool developed by Hoy et al 14 for the following reasons: (1) it is speci fi cally designed for prevalence studies; (2) it is an improved tool developed after a rigorous published process, including a review of the limitations of the existing to…”
MethodDarley, R. M., Silva, C. F. E., Costa, F. D. S., Xavier, C. B., & Demarco, F. F. (2020) · Dental Traumatology · doi:10.1111/edt.12588 · Cited by 18
Abbasi, E., Nasiri, Z., Mohammadi, J., Yazdani, Z., & Mohseni, S. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.10.02.22280631 · Cited by 16
Bigna, J. J. (2026) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-026-03121-0 · Cited by 15
“Methodological heterogeneity can amplify bias rather than average it out [5, 6].”
Incidence Rate of COVID-19 Infection in Hemoglobinopathies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Haghpanah, S., Hosseini‐Bensenjan, M., Sayadi, M., & Karimi, M. (2021) · Hemoglobin · doi:10.1080/03630269.2021.1927751 · Cited by 15
“HosseiniBensenjan) based on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist [13].”
MethodPediatric Outpatient Prescriptions in Countries With Advanced Economies in the 21st Century
Taine, M., Offredo, L., Weill, A., Dray‐Spira, R., Zureik, M., & Chalumeau, M. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5964 · Cited by 15
Lim, W. H., Tan, C., Xiao, J., Tan, D. J. H., Ng, C. H., Yong, J. N., Fu, C. E., Chan, K. E., Zeng, R. W., Ren, Y. P., et al. (2023) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1097/lvt.0000000000000004 · Cited by 15
“[27] Quality assessment and risk of bias Quality assessment of included articles was conducted with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool.”
MethodAnorexia Nervosa in vivo cytokine production: a systematic review
Maunder, K., Molloy, E. J., Jenkins, E., Hayden, J. C., Adamis, D., & McNicholas, F. (2023) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106390 · Cited by 15
“The following cytokines were assessed in the included studies: TNF-alpha The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies was used to assess the methodological quality of each study (Munn et al., 2014).”
Musilanga, N., Nasib, H., Jackson, G., Shayo, F., Nhanga, C., Girukwigomba, S., Mwakibolwa, A., Henry, S., Kijusya, K., & Msonge, E. (2024) · Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1155/2024/1240457 · Cited by 15
“Te methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using eight aspects of the Joanna Brigg’s Institute (JBI) quality checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies [23, 24].”
Low, C. E., Loke, S., Rana, S., Sim, B., & Ho, C. S. H. (2024) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.06.011 · Cited by 16
Bushi, G., Khatib, M. N., Balaraman, A. K., Ballal, S., Bansal, P., Tomar, B. S., Ashraf, A., Kumar, M., Sinha, A., Rawat, P., et al. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20746-9 · Cited by 17
“…studies was assessed to ensure the reliability and validity of our findings using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools [39], which allowed us to examine crucial domains such as the appropriateness of the sample frame and sampling method, the adequacy of the sample…”
A systematic review protocol of stigma among children and adolescents with epilepsy
Kirabira, J., Forry, J. B., Kinengyere, A. A., Adriko, W., Mbonde, A. A., Rukundo, G. Z., & Akena, D. H. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0940-9 · Cited by 15
“’s prevalence study critical appraisal tool [30].”
Double Burden of Excess Weight and Anemia in Latin American Children up to 2019
Shimabuku, R., Delgado, C., Nakachi, G., Teruya-Gibu, A., & Velásquez, P. (2020) · The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1620/tjem.252.159 · Cited by 15
“A scale of ten questions was used to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies (Munn et al. 2014).”
MethodAlamneh, Y. M. (2021) · Translational Research in Anatomy · doi:10.1016/j.tria.2021.100149 · Cited by 15
Tehrani, S. A., Keshtkar, A., Ramasamy, A., & Fadaei, M. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01833-z · Cited by 15
Psychosocial determinants of adolescent suicide: A national survey
Qaddoura, N., Dardas, L. A., & Pan, W. (2022) · Archives of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2022.04.004 · Cited by 18
Hajarizadeh, B., Mesgarpour, B., Nasiri, M. J., Alavian, S. M., Merat, S., Poustchi, H., Malekzadeh, R., Sedaghat, A., & Haghdoost, A. A. (2017) · Hepatitis Monthly · doi:10.5812/hepatmon.11715 · Cited by 15
“The quality of eligible studies were assessed using a critical appraisal tool, specifically developed for the prevalence studies (16).”
MethodQi, B., Tan, J., Feng, D., Guan, L., Li, J., Cao, M., & Zou, Y. F. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.70047 · Cited by 17
“The risk of bias of the selected studies was assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data [30, 31].”
Association Between Oral Dysbiosis and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Martínez-Martínez, V., Rodríguez‐Lozano, F. J., Pecci‐Lloret, M. P., & Pérez-Guzmán, N. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14103415 · Cited by 14
“Quality assessment of case-control studies; JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist [17].”
Tang, X., (曾子欣), Z. Z., Huang, H., & Symonds, J. E. (2025) · ECNU Review of Education · doi:10.1177/20965311251371227 · Cited by 23
“In particular, appraisal tools for quantitative studies usually comprise the criteria for cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys as well as experimental/trial methods, for example, the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (Munn et al., 2014).”
Alsadhan, N. M., Almaiman, A., Pujades‐Rodríguez, M., Brennan, C. A., Shuweihdi, F., Alhurishi, S. A., & West, R. M. (2022) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01632-7 · Cited by 14
“Quality assessment We appraised the quality of all included studies using a prespecified checklist adapted for this review and based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for prevalence studies [19] and the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) [20].”
MethodAiello, F., Afflitto, G. G., Bonetti, M. A., Ceccarelli, F., Cesareo, M., & Nucci, C. (2022) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-022-05890-5 · Cited by 14
“,) independently evaluated the quality of the included studies according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool (JBIPCAT) [21].”
MethodKumar, L., Murray-Krezan, C. M., Singh, N., Brennan, D. C., Rakita, R. M., Dasgupta, S., Fisher, C. E., & Limaye, A. P. (2023) · Transplantation Direct · doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000001514 · Cited by 14
Rabaan, A. A., Uzairue, L. I., Alfaraj, A. H., Halwani, M. A., Muzaheed, M., Alawfi, A., Alshengeti, A., Kaabi, N. A. M. A., Alawad, E., Alhajri, M. M., et al. (2023) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens12091157 · Cited by 14
Lyus, R., Buamah, C., Pollock, A. M., Cosgrove, L., & Brhlíková, P. (2023) · JRSM Open · doi:10.1177/20542704231197594 · Cited by 15
“Without further details on how the GBD authors determined whether a study was representative we used generally accepted criteria for representativeness (11); representative of the population in terms of age, gender, geographic location and sociodemographic group; use of a probability sampling method, e.”
MethodShukla, L., Shivaprakash, P., & Kumar, M. S. (2023) · The Indian Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1930_23 · Cited by 14
Esposito, J. E., Annoni, G., D’Amato, M., Graziosi, A., Troilo, F., Risio, A. D., Angelini, G., Castiglione, C., Tocco, P., Volpe, P., et al. (2024) · Journal of Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.31083/j.jin2302035 · Cited by 14
“The quality of each included article was assessed us-ing the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklist [17–19].”
MethodBriggs, J., Kostakis, I., Meredith, P., Dall’Ora, C., Darbyshire, J. L., Gerry, S., Griffiths, P., Hope, J., Jones, J., Kovacs, C., et al. (2024) · Health and Social Care Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hytr4612 · Cited by 16
Predicting Male Infertility Using Artificial Neural Networks: A Review of the Literature
Arroyo, V. S., Iosa, M., Antonucci, G., & Bartolo, D. D. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12070781 · Cited by 14
“…and prospective studies were both assessed with the JBI Checklist for Case Series, which consists of a rapid assessment based on the identification of ten specific items of information regarding the participants (from enrolment to the final stage of the experiment) and the procedure [32].”
MethodYirsaw, A. N., Bogale, E. K., Tefera, M., Belay, M. A., Alemu, A. T., Bogale, S. K., Getachew, E., Andarge, G. A., Seid, K., & Lakew, G. (2024) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04555-5 · Cited by 17
“The study design served as the starting point, and a one-step downgrade was applied for each domain that was not met [29]. also, the quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist [31, 32].”
MethodSharma, K., Khandia, R., Shrivastava, R., Nema, R. K., Mishra, S., Kanwar, R. K., Raut, A. A., Agrawal, A., Gupta, V., & Pandey, M. K. (2025) · Virology Journal · doi:10.1186/s12985-025-02630-z · Cited by 14
“The risk of bias in the studies included was checked with The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [10].”
Clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Dossouvi, K. M., Bouyo, T., Sognonnou, S., Ibadin, E. E., Lv, L.-C., Ba, B. S., Seck, A., Dossim, S., Sellera, F. P., Camara, M., et al. (2025) · Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control · doi:10.1186/s13756-025-01533-6 · Cited by 14
“Two authors performed the article quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [17].”
on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Cooperative Group, Liang, H., Pan, Z., Cai, X., Wang, W., Guo, C., He, J., Chen, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, B., et al. (2018) · Translational Lung Cancer Research · doi:10.21037/tlcr.2018.03.16 · Cited by 14
“Quality assessment of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the studies (16).”
MethodYazew, K. G., Kassahun, C. W., Wondim, A., Kerebih, H., & Abagez, E. S. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1249-4 · Cited by 14
“The qualities of each article were assessed by using a critical appraisal tool (JBI) for use in systematic reviews of the prevalence study [13].”
Method
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
