The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 5 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data. METHODS: A working group was created to assess current critical appraisal tools for studies reporting prevalence data and develop a new tool for these studies in systematic reviews of prevalence. Following the development of this tool it was piloted amongst an experienced group of sixteen healthcare researchers. RESULTS: The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews. Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use. Some comments were provided which helped refine the criteria. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study found that this tool was well-accepted by users and further refinements have been made to the tool based on their feedback. We now put forward this tool for use by authors conducting prevalence systematic reviews.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper describes development and pilot testing of a 10-item critical appraisal tool for studies reporting prevalence data in systematic reviews. In a pilot with 16 experienced healthcare researchers, the tool was rated acceptable, easy to use, timely, and valid by all but one participant, though further psychometric testing was recommended.
Key findings
- The working group found no standard method for critically appraising prevalence studies and developed a tool addressing representative sampling, recruitment, sample size, description of subjects/setting, data coverage, objective measurement, reliability, statistical analysis, confounding, and subpopulation criteria.
- Among 16 pilot participants, mean ease of use was 3.63 on a 5-point scale, with 75% rating it 4 (“easy”); mean acceptability was 4.33, with all participants rating 4 or 5; mean timeliness was 3.94, with 88% rating 4 (“acceptable”).
- All participants except 1 viewed the tool as a valid quality appraisal checklist for prevalence data.
- Feedback led to changes in question order and supporting information, but no changes were made to the individual questions; the tool was to be incorporated into the next Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review package.
Methods
- A Joanna Briggs Institute working group searched for systematic reviews of prevalence data and existing critical appraisal tools, then developed a new tool based on identified criteria and their own knowledge/research; the tool was internally trialed and refined.
- The tool was piloted at the 2013 Joanna Briggs Institute convention in Adelaide in October; attendees appraised a cross-sectional study using the new tool and completed a short survey on face validity, ease of use, acceptability, timeliness, and areas for improvement.
- Sixteen workshop participants completed the task and survey; 13 had an academic/research background, 2 had a health background, and 1 had both, with average research experience of 11 years (range 2.5–30 years).
Limitations
- The paper states the tool needs further testing in a larger-scale study to assess other clinimetric properties, particularly construct validity and inter-rater reliability.
- Evident from the text: the pilot assessed only face validity, ease of use, acceptability, and timeliness, with no formal inter-rater reliability or construct validity testing.
- Evident from the text: the pilot used a small convenience sample of 16 workshop attendees, mostly with academic/research backgrounds, which may limit generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
22 Own result · 6 No basis given · 5 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The group identified that the major area where prevalence reviews were disparate was in their conduct of critical appraisal or quality assessment of included studies.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have developed this tool as we did not feel that any of the current checklists identified from our search sufficiently addressed important quality issues in prevalence studies.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use.”
- Also stated in: § 10. · plain
“participants providing a rating of 4, corresponding to 'easy' .”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 10. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of tools were identified including the Joanna Briggs Institute's Descriptive/Case series critical appraisal tool.”
- Also stated in: § Developing the Tool · plain
“Critical appraisal tools from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) were also identified.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Developing the Tool
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Developing the Tool · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Out of all the participants, all except 1 viewed the tool as a valid quality appraisal checklist for prevalence data (Table 4).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot test of this tool amongst a group of experienced healthcare professionals and researchers found that this tool had face validity and high levels of acceptability, ease of use and timeliness to complete.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Our tool also has the advantage of being simple, easy and quick as shown during the pilot testing.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, currently there does not appear to be any formal guidance for authors wishing to conduct a review of prevalence.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The working group's search for systematic reviews of prevalence was comprehensive enough to conclude that no formal guidance exists.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average time spent working in research was 11 years, with the minimum being 2.5 years and the maximum experience being 30 years.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These comments resulted in some changes in the order of the questions of the tool and the supporting information used to assist in judging criteria, although no changes were made to the individual questions.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For timeliness, the mean score was 3.94, with 88% providing a score of 4 (acceptable).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 16, 13 participants stated they had an academic/research background, 2 said they had a health background, and one said they had both.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The working group's search for critical appraisal tools was comprehensive enough to conclude that no standard method exists.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Arithmetic mean | 11.37 | 3.63 | 4.33 | 3.94 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% lower confidence limit | 6.94 | 3.24 | 4.06 | 3.63 |”
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
“| 95.00% upper confidence limit | 15.80 | 4.00 | 4.60 | 4.24 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria? · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Number of cases | 15 | 16 | 15 | 16 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plaindirectn = 16- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Number of cases | 15 | 16 | 15 | 16 |”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > 10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sixteen workshop participants completed the critical appraisal task and survey.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Results
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The systematic review of evidence has been proposed and is now well-accepted as the ideal method to summarize the literature relating to a certain social or healthcare topic (2,3).”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2]
- Not checked yetcites [3]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.
In the paper
“Some of the tools [most notably the tool refined by Hoy et al. (20)] contain similar questions to our tool but there are important differences.”
§ The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.
“However, policy-makers are often faced with conflicting reports of disease prevalence in the literature.”
The paper relies on this without support.
User acceptance and face validity of the tool indicate its validity as a quality appraisal checklist.
“The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews.”
“along with a short survey that was developed to establish the face validity, ease of use, acceptability and timeliness (i.e.time taken to complete) of the tool, and feedback on areas for improvement (23).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The working group's search for critical appraisal tools was comprehensive enough to conclude that no standard method exists.
“Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
“The group then searched for critical appraisal tools that have been used to assess studies reporting on prevalence data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The tool's criteria cover all important aspects of methodological quality for prevalence studies.
“The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews.”
“Based on a review of these criteria and our own knowledge and research we developed a tool specifically for use in systematic reviews of prevalence data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The working group's search for systematic reviews of prevalence was comprehensive enough to conclude that no formal guidance exists.
“However, currently there does not appear to be any formal guidance for authors wishing to conduct a review of prevalence.”
“The working party began by conducting a search for systematic reviews of prevalence data to determine how the methodological quality of studies included in these reviews were assessed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There has been substantial variability in how studies reporting prevalence data are critically appraised.
“Until now there has been substantial variability in how studies reporting prevalence data are critically appraised.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data are becoming increasingly important and popular.
“Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data are becoming increasingly important as decision makers realize their usefulness in informing policy and practice.”
“Prevalence systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the research community.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many health problems are not easily diagnosed or defined, and some measures may not be capable of including or excluding appropriate levels or stages of the health problem.
“Many health problems are not easily diagnosed or defined and some measures may not be capable of including or excluding appropriate levels or stages of the health problem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If outcomes are assessed using observer-reported or self-reported scales, the risk of over- or under-reporting is increased, and objectivity is compromised.
“If the outcomes were assessed using observer reported, or self-reported scales, the risk of over-or under-reporting is increased, and objectivity is compromised.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Validated measurement tools have a significant impact on outcome assessment validity.
“Importantly, determine if the measurement tools used were validated instruments as this has a significant impact on outcome assessment validity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Considerable judgment is required to determine the presence of some health outcomes.
“Considerable judgment is required to determine the presence of some health outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Differing methods of analysis are based on differing assumptions about the data and how it will respond.
“differing methods of analysis are based on differing assumptions about the data and how it will respond.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prevalence rates found in studies only provide estimates of the true prevalence of a problem in the larger population.
“Prevalence rates found in studies only provide estimates of the true prevalence of a problem in the larger population.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Since some subgroups are very small, 95% confidence intervals are usually given.
“Since some subgroups are very small, 95% confidence intervals are usually given.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Incidence and prevalence studies often draw or report findings regarding the differences between groups.
“Incidence and prevalence studies often draw or report findings regarding the differences between groups.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Each study included in the systematic review underwent a quality assessment to evaluate the research methodology employed in each study to ensure the reliability and validity of its findings. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, widely acknowledged and reliable for quality assessment, were used to investigate each study [17].”
From Malaria in pregnancy: Meta-analyses of prevalence and associated complications (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“both have been previously validated [23, 24].”
From What are the barriers, facilitators and interventions targeting help-seeking behaviours for common mental health problems in adolescents? A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment using the JBI tool, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.”
From Adherence to PCSK9 Inhibitors in Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two reviewers (MD and CS) independently assessed the risk of bias/ study quality of each included study with the adjusted Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (Munn et al., 2014).”
From Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Munn et al., 2014
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Tropical climates with appropriate temperature, humidity, and rainfall conditions encourage endemicity of the disease as they are conducive to the reproduction of the parasite within the anopheles’ mosquito, which is itself native to these environments [17].”
From Malaria in pregnancy: Meta-analyses of prevalence and associated complications (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the citing paper
“we urge reviewers to refer to the JBI critical appraisal tool, [4] which has been formally evaluated and is increasingly used across these types of reviews.”
From How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“The quality and risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) which is designed specifically for assessing prevalence studies 25 .”
From Anxiety in Informal Dementia Carers: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Environmental factors can have a substantial impact on the prevalence or incidence of a condition so it is important that authors define the context or specific setting relevant to their review question [15, 29].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“These types of reviews enable governments, policy makers, health professionals and the general population to inform the development and delivery of health services and evaluate changes and trends in diseases over time [15, 29].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
Cites
Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal
Ndiaye, M., Lespez, L., Tribolo, C., Rassé, M., Hadjas, I., Davidoux, S., Huysecom, É., & Douze, K. (2024) · Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000667478 · Cited by 24,214
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613 · cited 2×
“(STROBE) Checklist (18) 22 Targeted towards reporting”
BackgroundVandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Hoy, D., Brooks, P., Woolf, A., Blyth, F., March, L., Bain, C., Baker, P., Smith, E., & Buchbinder, R. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 · Cited by 2,555
Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies
Naing, L., & Winn, T. (2006) · Cited by 1,381
McGrath, J., Saha, S., Welham, J., El Saadi, O., MacCauley, C., & Chant, D. (2004) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-2-13 · Cited by 1,072
Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences.
Marriott, F. H. C., & Daniel, W. W. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530782 · Cited by 760
Bahekar, A., Singh, S., Saha, S. A., Molnár, J., & Arora, R. (2007) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.037 · Cited by 699
Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem.
Loney, P., Chambers, L. W., BENNETT, K. J., Roberts, J. G., & Stratford, P. W. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 550
Munn, Z., Tufănaru, C., & Aromataris, E. (2014) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000451683.66447.89 · Cited by 543
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual: 2011 edition. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2011.
- Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D. The Systematic Review of Prevalence and Incidence Data The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual 2014. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 999
Gravante, F., Lombardi, A., Gagliardi, A. M., Pucci, A., & Latina, R. (2020) · Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000433 · Cited by 14
“Furthermore, the quality of the studies was assessed through the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).(29) This tool is composed of 13 items about randomization (2 items), intention to treat (1 item), blinded study design (3 items), treatment (1 item), follow-up…”
MethodMwangi, L., Abuga, J. A., Cottrell, E., Kariuki, S. M., Kinyanjui, S., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2021) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16593.1 · Cited by 14
Chen, C., Xu, Y. M., Huang, W., Du, Y., & Hu, C. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048055 · Cited by 14
Cardiac structure and function in elite female athletes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bryde, R. E., Applewhite, A. I., Dabrh, A. M. A., Taylor, B. J., Heckman, M. G., Filmalter, S. E., Pujalte, G. G. A., Rojas, C. A., Heckman, A. J., Brigham, T., et al. (2021) · Physiological Reports · doi:10.14814/phy2.15141 · Cited by 14
“We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist to assess the quality of cross- sectional (prevalence) or case series studies (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodGynecological Morbidity among Women in Reproductive Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dheresa, M., Assefa, N., Berhane, Y., Worku, A., Mingiste, B., & Dessie, Y. (2017) · Journal of Women s Health Care · doi:10.4172/2167-0420.1000367 · Cited by 14
Miranda‐Schaeubinger, M., Chakravarti, I., Lidani, K. C. F., Omidian, Z., & Gilman, R. H. (2019) · Current Tropical Medicine Reports · doi:10.1007/s40475-019-00177-y · Cited by 14
Aguirre Velasco, A., Silva Santa Cruz, I., Billings, J., Jimenez, M., & Rowe, S. (2025) · Focus · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.25023003 · Cited by 14
“For the quality assessment, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist [21] and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [22], which were appropriate due to the variety of study designs included in this review; both have been previously validated [23-24].”
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Moral Injury Outcome Measures
Griffin, B. J., Price, L. R., Jenkins, Z., Childs, A., Tong, L., Raciborski, R. A., Weber, M. C., Pyne, J. M., Maguen, S., Norman, S. B., et al. (2025) · Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s40501-024-00342-9 · Cited by 18
“To assess the quality of studies included in the review, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for analytical cross-sectional studies (Supplemental File 4) [16].”
Seppelt, P. C., Mas‐Peiró, S., Rosa, R. D., Dimitriasis, Z., Zeiher, A. M., & Vasa‐Nicotera, M. (2020) · Clinical Research in Cardiology · doi:10.1007/s00392-020-01775-x · Cited by 13
Salameh, M. H., Hantouly, A. T., Rayyan, A., Dabbas, J., Toubasi, A. A., Hartnett, D. A., & Blankenhorn, B. D. (2022) · Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics · doi:10.1177/24730114221096482 · Cited by 14
Putnikovic, M., Jordan, Z., Munn, Z., Borg, C., & Ward, M. (2022) · Drug Safety · doi:10.1007/s40264-022-01215-x · Cited by 13
“Quality assessment of eligible studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers (MP, CB) using a standardised critical appraisal instrument from JBI for studies reporting prevalence data [11, 12, 16].”
MethodSelf-citationIoannidis, J. P. A., & Contopoulos‐Ioannidis, D. G. (2023) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2023.06.009 · Cited by 13
“Eligible articles were assessed using the Joanna Briggs risk of ias tool for prevalence studies that includes nine assessment tems [3] .”
Prevalence and Pattern of Learning Disability in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Joseph, J. K., & Devu, B. K. (2022) · Indian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.4103/iopn.iopn_7_22 · Cited by 13
Prvulović, N., Djordjević, M., & Pantelić, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1198877 · Cited by 13
“The Joanna Briggs Institute tool (31) was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the prevalence studies.”
MethodVibriosis in South Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Muzembo, B. A., Kitahara, K., Ohno, A., Khatiwada, J., Dutta, S., & Miyoshi, S. (2024) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2024.01.022 · Cited by 13
Almansoof, A. S., Masuadi, E., Al-Muallem, A., & Agha, S. (2024) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-024-01829-6 · Cited by 13
“It is the account of the affected people number among different populations either at a local or global level (Ward 2013; Munn et al. 2014, 2015).”
Demissie, D. B., Molla, G., Tiyare, F. T., Badacho, A. S., & Tadele, A. (2024) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121241248275 · Cited by 14
“35–”
Miyaguchi, R., Masuda, F., Sumi, Y., Kadotani, H., Ozeki, Y., Banno, M., & Kuniyoshi, Y. (2024) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101975 · Cited by 14
Pino, C. K.-D., Ramos‐García, P., & González‐Moles, M. Á. (2024) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers16152614 · Cited by 13
“Joanna Briggs Institute [30,32] methods were implemented to the primary-level studies by one author (CKDP) who critically evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) attending to the following questions, specifically designed for meta-analyses of proportions: (a) “Was the sample…”
MethodKo, A. M., Wu, P., Lin, W., & Lee, C. (2024) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.15106 · Cited by 16
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data was used to assess the quality of the included studies (Munn et al., 2014 ).”
Alemu, A. T., Bogale, E. K., Bogale, S. K., Getachew, E., Andarge, G. A., Seid, K., Lakew, G., Yirsaw, A. N., Tefera, M., Delie, A. M., et al. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11552-5 · Cited by 13
“The quality appraisal tool adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for cross-sectional studies consisting of eight-item check-lists [33].”
MethodMellone, N. G., Silva, M. T., Paglia, M. D. G., Lopes, L. C., Barberato-Filho, S., Fiol, F. D. S. D., & Bergamaschi, C. D. C. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01075 · Cited by 13
HIV-Tuberculous Meningitis Co-Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Pormohammad, A., Azimi, T., Nasiri, M. J., Goudarzi, M., Zangiabadian, M., Sedighian, H., & Fooladi, A. A. I. (2020) · Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · doi:10.2174/1389201021666200730143906 · Cited by 13
Sabol, J., Kane, C., Wilhelm, M. P., Reneker, J. C., & Donaldson, M. B. (2021) · International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.26603/001c.18682 · Cited by 13
“First Author, Year Study Design Participants (n) Gender Mean Age (SD) Sports Involved Average Return to Play Time (SD) Outcome Measure(s) Covassin, 2014 21 Cohort Study MSK (63) CONC (63) M= 92 F= 34 MSK= 22.84 (1.77) CONC= 22.54 (1.73) Football, wrestling, softball, soccer, volleyball, basketball, field hockey, baseb…”
InfluentialGlobal prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis in dogs: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Gorgani-Firouzjaee, T., Kalantari, N., Chehrazi, M., Ghaffari, S., & Shahdin, S. (2022) · Journal of Helminthology · doi:10.1017/s0022149x21000808 · Cited by 13
Zagales, I., Selvakumar, S., Ngatuvai, M., Fanfan, D., Kornblith, L. Z., Santos, R. G., Ibrahim, J., & Elkbuli, A. (2022) · The American Surgeon · doi:10.1177/00031348221101583 · Cited by 13
“The quality of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.15 The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for observational studies, and the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs.16,17”
MethodMamun, M. A., Al‐Mamun, F., Hosen, I., Kaggwa, M. M., Sikder, M. T., Muhit, M., & Gozal, D. (2022) · Sleep Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.sleepe.2022.100045 · Cited by 13
Abadi, Y. R., Rafiemanesh, H., Gholami, J., Shadloo, B., Amin‐Esmaeili, M., & Rahimi‐Movaghar, A. (2020) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-020-00424-w · Cited by 13
“The quality of each study was assessed by an 8-item critical appraisal form, which was adapted from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal-checklist for crosssectional studies [19] in our research centre and has been used in similar studies [20].”
MethodA Meta-analysis of Educational Data Mining for Predicting Students Performance in Programming
Moonsamy, D., Naicker, N., Timothy, T., & Ropo, E. (2021) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2021.0120213 · Cited by 13
“The index of heterogeneity (I 2 statistic) was used to assess the heterogeneity amongst the included studies and we tested for its significance using Cochran‟s Q test [32-34].”
MethodPega, F., Momen, N. C., Gagliardi, D., Bero, L. A., Boccuni, F., Chartres, N., Descatha, A., Dzhambov, A. M., Godderis, L., Loney, T., et al. (2022) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107136 · Cited by 15
Reynders, R. M., Ronchi, L., Ladu, L., Girolamo, N. D., de Lange, J., Roberts, N. W., & Mickan, S. M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0336-z · Cited by 13
“Table 6 Tabular presentation of the scores of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool of prevalence and incidence data [35, 59]”
MethodDevelopment of insomnia in patients with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yang, J., Lin, A., Tan, Q., Dou, W., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Lin, H., Wei, B., Huang, J., & Xie, J. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297941 · Cited by 14
Damianos, A., Tsitsos, A., Economou, V., Gioula, G., & Haidich, A. (2024) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.111127 · Cited by 15
Enzyme immobilization on nanomaterials in food industry: current status and future perspectives
Du, L., Liang, Y., Cui, S., Wei, J., Liu, J., Zhang, S., Zhang, Y., Zhou, L., He, Y., Ma, L., et al. (2025) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2025.2533438 · Cited by 12
“The assignment of this score was based on the critical evaluation instrument for prevalence studies developed and tested by Munn et al. (2014).”
Oral Lichen Planus and Systemic Diseases
Warnakulasuriya, S., Ramos‐García, P., & González‐Moles, M. Á. (2025) · Journal of Dental Research · doi:10.1177/00220345251385966 · Cited by 12
“Singularly, a specific tool for systematic reviews addressing prevalence questions—designed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (University of Adelaide, Australia) (Munn et al. 2014)—was consistently applied (De Porras-Carrique et al. 2022; De Porras-Carrique et al. 2023; González-Moles et al. 2023; De Porras-Carrique et a…”
InfluentialChen, L., Ruan, Y., Ma, Y., Ge, L., & Han, L. (2022) · International Journal of Nursing Practice · doi:10.1111/ijn.13041 · Cited by 12
Allen, S., Goodall, T., Jones, C. A., James, R., & Surtees, A. D. R. (2023) · Schizophrenia Bulletin Open · doi:10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad002 · Cited by 12
“27 This was designed to measure the methodological limitations of a study in relation to the goals of the meta-analysis and assessed risk of bias across 6 domains: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, statistical bias, reporting bias, and generalizability.”
MethodQuek, J., Tan, D. J. H., Chan, K. E., Lim, W. H., Ng, C. H., Ren, Y. P., Koh, T. K., Teh, R., Xiao, J., Fu, C. E., et al. (2023) · Digestive Diseases · doi:10.1159/000531016 · Cited by 13
A scoping review of remote facilitation during simulation-based healthcare education
Park, J. O., Lee-Jayaram, J. J., Sato, E., Eto, Y., Kahili-Heede, M. K., Hirayama, K., & Berg, B. W. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04551-3 · Cited by 12
“Appraisal of the included articles was completed by four reviewers in two scoring groups of two members each using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools [27, 28].”
MethodPrevalence of parental supply of alcohol to minors: a systematic review
van der Kruk, S. R., Harrison, N. J., Bartram, A., Newton, S., Miller, C. L., Room, R., Olver, I., & Bowden, J. A. (2023) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daad111 · Cited by 12
“…within supply prevalence by study (e.g. reported by minors as opposed to parents) and sample characteristics (e.g. age, gender and country) may inform future health promotion intervention designs and initiatives that reduce parental supply and associated alcohol use by minors (Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundEpidemiology and clinical features of hypnic headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Melchior, A. G., Ayyoub, A., Christensen, R. H., Al‐Khazali, H. M., Amin, F. M., & Ashina, H. (2023) · Cephalalgia · doi:10.1177/03331024231218389 · Cited by 12
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instrument for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data was used to evaluate risk of bias (6).”
MethodYeung, T., Grebowicz, A., Nevskaya, T., Zahid, S., & Pope, J. E. (2024) · Lara D. Veeken · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keae048 · Cited by 12
Brain reward function in people who use cannabis: a systematic review
Beyer, E., Poudel, G. R., Antonopoulos, S., Thomson, H. M., & Lorenzetti, V. (2024) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1323609 · Cited by 13
Prevalence of childhood cancer survivors in Europe: a scoping review
Silva, N. D. P., Gini, A., Dolya, A., Colombet, M., Soerjomataram, I., Youlden, D. R., Stiller, C. A., Steliarova‐Foucher, E., Aitken, J. F., Bray, F., et al. (2024) · EJC Paediatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ejcped.2024.100155 · Cited by 12
“No data quality concerns were identified using the standard quality assessment criteria [36,37] (Supplement, Table S1).”
Hu, T., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Hong, X., & Zhang, T. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14081220 · Cited by 12
“Utilizing the Cochrane quality assessment tool, combined with an enhanced critical appraisal tool (High-Quality Item Rating Scale) developed by Munn et al. [31], we adapted the methodology for systematic evaluation in this study and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies [31].”
Hasan, S. U., & Siddiqui, M. A. R. (2024) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2024.111815 · Cited by 12
Mahdavi, F., Maleki, F., Mohammadi, M. R., Mehboodi, M., Hanifeh, F., Asghari, A., & Mohammadi‐Ghalehbin, B. (2024) · Foodborne Pathogens and Disease · doi:10.1089/fpd.2024.0107 · Cited by 12
“Papers were evaluated for inclusion or exclusion with the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (Munn et al., 2014).”
Somda, N. S., Nyarkoh, R., Tankoano, A., Bonkoungou, O. J. I., Tetteh‐Quarcoo, P. B., & Donkor, E. S. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-10266-7 · Cited by 12
Prevalence of Anopheles stephensi in Horn of Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abebe, W., Sisay, A., Wondmagegn, Y. M., Setegn, A., Asmare, Z., Woldesenbet, D., Kassanew, B., Mekuanint, A., & Feleke, S. F. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-11022-1 · Cited by 12
“Joanna Brigg’s Institute quality evaluation standards (JBI) were used to assess the studies’ quality, and studies scoring 50% or above on the quality scale were considered to be of excellent quality [27].”
Carey, M. G., Regehr, C., Wagner, S. L., White, M., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., et al. (2021) · International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health · doi:10.1007/s00420-020-01631-5 · Cited by 12
Burgess, A., Wilcoxon, L., Rushworth, I., & Meiser-Stedman, R. (2021) · Acta paediatrica · doi:10.1111/apa.16113 · Cited by 10
Momen, N. C., Streicher, K. N., da Silva, D. T. C., Descatha, A., Frings‐Dresen, M. H. W., Gagliardi, D., Godderis, L., Loney, T., Mandrioli, D., Modenese, A., et al. (2021) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.107005 · Cited by 12
McIntosh, S., Hunter, R., Scrimgeour, D., Bekheit, M., Stevenson, L. W., & Ramsay, G. (2021) · Annals of Medicine and Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103148 · Cited by 12
Incidence of omental metastasis in uterine serous carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Xu, H., Cui, S.-S., Ran, L., Liu, Y., Hu, C., Xu, Y. M., & Tian, Y. (2022) · Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction · doi:10.1016/j.jogoh.2022.102395 · Cited by 12
Tranexamic Acid Utilization in Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Meta-analysis
Salameh, M. H., Attia, A. K., Khatib, S. E., Hantouly, A. T., Hsu, R. Y., & Blankenhorn, B. D. (2022) · Foot & Ankle International · doi:10.1177/10711007221114139 · Cited by 12
Gao, T., Chen, F., & Li, M. (2022) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.5163 · Cited by 12
Damayanthi, E. D., Pineda, T., Lubis, A. M. T., Utoyo, G. A., & Alaina, I. F. A. N. (2023) · The Knee · doi:10.1016/j.knee.2023.10.001 · Cited by 12
Ahmadpour, E., Valilou, S., Ghanizadegan, M. A., Seyfi, R., Hosseini, S. A., Hatam‐Nahavandi, K., Hosseini, H., Behravan, M., Barac, A. M., & Morovati, H. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297619 · Cited by 14
“Authors independently assessed the quality according to the Hoy et al . checklist previously described [28, 29].”
MethodRanjbar, R., & Halaji, M. (2019) · Journal of Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.001079 · Cited by 12
Reynders, R. M., Ronchi, L., Ladu, L., Girolamo, N. D., de Lange, J., Roberts, N. W., & Mickan, S. M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0198-4 · Cited by 12
“Studies will be selected independently by three experienced systematic reviewers (RMR, LR, and LL), who are also topic experts.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAroba, O. J., Naicker, N., Adeliyi, T. T., & Ogunsakin, R. E. (2020) · International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology · doi:10.35940/ijeat.a1717.1010120 · Cited by 11
“Both the fixed-effects model and the random-effects model were used for the meta-analysis while the heterogeneity among the extracted approaches was established using the I 2 statistic [64-65].”
MethodLuan, C., Chen, M., Yan, A. Z.-A., Tsai, Y., Hsieh, M., Yang, H., & Chou, H. (2022) · Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.026 · Cited by 11
Prevalence of urinary retention after vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta- analysis
Yoshida, A., Yoshida, M., Kawajiri, M., Takeishi, Y., Nakamura, Y., & Yoshizawa, T. (2022) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05256-9 · Cited by 11
“Based on the previous study [17, 18], the risk of bias was evaluated according to these nine criteria.”
MethodPrevalence of Pediatric Cataract in Asia
Tariq, M., Uddin, Q. S., Ahmed, B., Sheikh, S., Ali, U., & Mohiuddin, A. (2022) · Journal of Current Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/joco.joco_339_21 · Cited by 11
Real-World Use of Symptomatic Treatments in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Garcia, M. J., Leadley, R. M., Lang, S., Ross, J., Vinand, E., Ballard, C. G., & Gsteiger, S. (2022) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-220471 · Cited by 11
Sagaro, G. G., Angeloni, U., Marotta, C., Nittari, G., Rezza, G., Silenzi, A., Battineni, G., & Amenta, F. (2023) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm13050861 · Cited by 11
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies [24].”
MethodShams-Abadi, A. D., Mohammadian-Hafshejani, A., Paterson, D. L., Arash, R., Farsani, E. A., Taji, A., Heidari, H., & Abadi, M. S. S. (2023) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-023-02950-6 · Cited by 11
“Quality assessment The overall quality of studies was assessed using modified Critical Appraisal Checklist recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute [77] and performed by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.”
MethodLactate dehydrogenase contribution to symptom persistence in long COVID: A pooled analysis
Udeh, R., Utrero‐Rico, A., Dolja‐Gore, X., Rahmati, M., McEvoy, M., & Kenna, T. (2023) · Reviews in Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/rmv.2477 · Cited by 11
“20 Studies will be considered of good, moderate or poor quality if they scored > 7, 5 ‐ 7 or 5 respectively.”
BackgroundInterventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review
Sampieri, G., Li, H., Ataalla, P., Merriman, K., Noel, C. W., Hallet, J. I., Coburn, N. G., Karam, I., Smoragiewicz, M., Wong, B. M., et al. (2023) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-023-14576-z · Cited by 11
Seroepidemiology of Human Tularemia—Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Seroprevalence Studies
Mattatia, C., Agyeman, P., Schöbi, N., Aebi, S., Duppenthaler, A., Buettcher, M., & Aebi, C. (2023) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad636 · Cited by 11
“We next assessed all retrieved studies using a critical appraisal checklist adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies [11, 12] (Supplementary Data File 1 and Supplementary Table 1).”
MethodSadeghi, A., Nouri, F., Taherifard, E., Shahlaee, M. A., & Ebrahimi, N. D. (2024) · Infection · doi:10.1007/s15010-024-02244-7 · Cited by 11
“Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment was done by two independent reviewers (MAS and ET) using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist [17, 18].”
COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among People Living with HIV: Review and Meta-Analysis
Pereira, M. E., Aleluia, Í. R. S., de Castro, C. T., Oliveira, T. D. A., Cunha, M. S., Magno, L., Dourado, I. C., Barreto, F. R., Natividade, M., Appiah, S. C. Y., et al. (2024) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-024-04351-w · Cited by 11
Best Practices: Burnout Is More Than Binary
Thakore, N. L., Lan, M., Winkel, A. F., Vieira, D. L., & Kang, S. K. (2024) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.24.31111 · Cited by 12
Orthohantavirus infections in South America: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Oloris, S. C. S., Neves, V. F., Iani, F. C. D. M., & Scarponi, C. F. D. O. (2024) · Archives of Virology · doi:10.1007/s00705-024-06104-5 · Cited by 12
“After reading the full texts of each eligible study, a critical assessment of the quality and risk of methodological bias was performed [ 14 ].”
Holland, C. V., Geraili, Z., Valizadeh, S., Ebrahimi, M., & Rostami, A. (2024) · International Journal for Parasitology Parasites and Wildlife · doi:10.1016/j.ijppaw.2024.100984 · Cited by 11
“To evaluate the quality and risk of bias for each eligible publication, we utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodRelapse Following Electroconvulsive Therapy for Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Aoki, N., Tajika, A., Suwa, T., Kawashima, H., Yasuda, K., Shimizu, T., Uchinuma, N., Tominaga, H., Tan, X. W., Koh, A. H. K., et al. (2024) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbae169 · Cited by 13
Economic Burden and Cost-Effectiveness of Management of Non-Infectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review
Sriranganathan, A., Mihalache, A., Grad, J., Miranda, R. N., & Felfeli, T. (2025) · Ocular Immunology and Inflammation · doi:10.1080/09273948.2025.2450472 · Cited by 11
“Although our study collected information on data sources from each included study, funding source transparency was not assessed by the JBI tool.”
InfluentialSurgical patient-reported experience measures and qualitative experience studies: systematic review
Darwish, M., Nandy, S., Willis, S., Coulson, J., Withers, K. L., & Bosanquet, D. C. (2024) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae142 · Cited by 11
“The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools 29 .”
Rates of Depression in Children and Adolescents With ADHD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Wang, S., Stewart, T. M., Ozen, I., Mukherjee, A., & Rhodes, S. (2025) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/10870547251341597 · Cited by 14
“Transparency in recruitment methods is an important aspect of methodological quality, as it enables researchers to better evaluate the potential generalizability of the findings (Munn et al., 2014).”
Prevalence of Autoimmune Gastritis Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Li, M., Huang, Y., Xiao, L., & Lü, H. (2025) · Helicobacter · doi:10.1111/hel.70065 · Cited by 12
“The quality of each selected study was independently evaluated by LMX and HY using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool [27].”
Walker, J., Teague, B., Memarzia, J., & Meiser‐Stedman, R. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100041 · Cited by 11
White, N. C., Wagner, S. L., Corneil, W., Fraess‐Phillips, A., Krutop, E., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., Regehr, C., White, M., et al. (2022) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.23436 · Cited by 11
Prevalence of substance use among Iranian male adolescents: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Hosseini, J., Shojaeefar, E., Pooladgar, P., Aliakbari, F., Ganji, M. A. A., Hamdieh, M., Kheradmand, A., & Fashami, M. A. (2022) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.885 · Cited by 10
“The quality of the studies was assessed using a valid and reliable instrument designed by Munn et al.44 in 2014 to measure the quality of the systematic review of prevalence studies.”
MethodPormohammad, A., Nasiri, M. J., Riahi, S. M., & Fallah, F. (2018) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/tmi.13059 · Cited by 14
“Quality assessment of the studies was performed according to the Critical Appraisal Checklist recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute [10].”
MethodAmbachew, S., Eshetie, S., Geremew, D., Endalamaw, A., & Melku, M. (2018) · Dubai Diabetes and Endocrinology Journal · doi:10.1159/000493945 · Cited by 11
Akalu, T. Y., Aynalem, Y. A., Shiferaw, W. S., Alamneh, Y. M., Getnet, A., Abebaw, A., Atnaf, A., Abate, A., Tilahun, M., Kassie, B., et al. (2022) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121221082447 · Cited by 10
Patel, N., Gold, J. L., Brown, N. J., Abraham, M. E., Beyer, R. S., Yang, C., Moore, J. R., Saunders, S. T., Shahrestani, S., Gendreau, J. L., et al. (2022) · Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2022.07.013 · Cited by 10
“Neuromodulation 2022; -: 1–10 two investigators with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for Cohort Studies.23”
MethodSheriff, S., Shen, T., Abdal, S., Saks, D., Mirzaei, M., Gupta, V. B., Chitranshi, N., You, Y., Schultz, A., Graham, S. L., et al. (2023) · Neural Regeneration Research · doi:10.4103/1673-5374.371380 · Cited by 10
“The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools (https://jo annabriggs.org/ critical-appraisal-tools) (Munn et al., 2014) were used to assess the study quality.”
MethodHuang, D. Q., Chan, K. E., Tan, C., Zeng, R. W., Koh, B., Ong, E. Y. H., Ong, C. C. H., Ong, C. E. Y., Tan, D. J. H., Lim, W. H., et al. (2023) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.17516 · Cited by 10
Kirkham, A. M., Candeliere, J., Stelfox, H. T., Nagpal, S., Dubois, L. A., MacFadden, D. R., McIsaac, D. I., & Roberts, D. J. (2023) · Annals of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2023.06.030 · Cited by 10
Tang, A. S. P., Tan, C., Lim, W. H., Ng, C. H., Tan, D. J. H., Zeng, R. W., Xiao, J., Ong, E. Y. H., Cho, E. E. L., Chung, C. H., et al. (2023) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000004840 · Cited by 11
“28 The JBI assessment rates the risk of bias of cohort studies on the premises of appropriateness of sample frame, sampling method, adequacy of sample size, data analysis, methods for identification and measurement of relevant conditions, statistical analysis, and response rate adequacy.”
MethodKristanti, M. S., Hidayati, N. W., & Maryadi, M. (2023) · Belitung Nursing Journal · doi:10.33546/bnj.2713 · Cited by 10
“For the JBI tools, responses were recorded as ‘yes’ if information was found, ‘no’ if a particular item was not conducted, ‘unclear’ if there was uncertainty, and ‘not applicable’ if it did not relate to the study being evaluated (Munn et al., 2014).”
BackgroundCao, J., Sun, W., Zheng, Y., Shan, S., Liu, Y., Huang, X., Tang, K., Zhu, Y., Adeloye, D., Rudan, I., et al. (2024) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.14.04062 · Cited by 10
“Two reviewers (WS and YZ) assessed the quality of each included article using a modified version of a critical appraisal tool developed for prevalence systematic reviews [31].”
MethodGlobal distribution of zoonotic digenetic trematodes: a scoping review
Hu, Y., Zhan, R.-J., Lu, S., Zhang, Y., Zhou, M., Huang, H., Wang, D., Zhang, T., Huang, Z., Zhou, Y., et al. (2024) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-024-01208-1 · Cited by 10
“The quality of the included articles was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [12].”
MethodGattie, M., Lieven, E., & Kluk, K. (2024) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106086 · Cited by 10
Berhe, R., Arora, A., Ekanayake, K., & Agho, K. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311796 · Cited by 12
Tobacco smoking in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Belete, H., Mekonen, T., Connor, J. P., Chan, G., Hides, L. M., & Leung, J. (2025) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.14040 · Cited by 14
“The risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool [24] and the risk of bias tool for prevalence studies [25].”
Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research
Reynders, R. M., ter Riet, G., Girolamo, N. D., & Malički, M. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-01928-1 · Cited by 11
Yi, S., Shadiev, R., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2164784 · Cited by 10
“- Based on the quality assessment criteria of Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools (Munn et al., 2014), quality assessment of reviewed articles was carried out.”
The Goldberg–Huxley model of the pathway to psychiatric care: 21st-century systematic review
Huxley, P. J., Krayer, A., Poole, R., Gromadzka, A., Jie, D. L., & Nafees, S. B. (2023) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2023.505 · Cited by 10
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
