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 801–900 of 999
Prehabilitation in radiation therapy: a scoping review
Flores, L. E., Westmark, D., Katz, N. B., Hunter, T. L., Silver, E. M., Bryan, K. M., Jagsi, R., McClelland, S., & Silver, J. K. (2024) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08262-9 · Cited by 10
“[11, 12]”
Malaria research and its influence on anti-malarial drug policy in Malawi: a case study
Mwendera, C. A., de Jager, C., Longwe, H., Phiri, K. S., Hongoro, C., & Mutero, C. M. (2016) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0108-1 · Cited by 10
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Razavi, S., Dadashi, M., Pormohammad, A., Khoramrooz, S. S., Mirzaii, M., Gholipour, A., & Darban‐Sarokhalil, D. (2018) · Archives of Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.5812/archcid.58410 · Cited by 10
“Included studies were appraised for quality, using a quality assessment checklist designed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (29).”
MethodSayyah, M., Shirbandi, K., Javanmardi, F., & Rahim, F. (2018) · Journal of Medicine and Life · doi:10.25122/jml-2018-0020 · Cited by 10
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of therapeutic targets in cervical cancer
Patrono, M. G., Calvo, M. F., Franco, J. V. A., Garrote, V., & Vietto, V. (2021) · ecancermedicalscience · doi:10.3332/ecancer.2021.1200 · Cited by 10
“The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by each reviewer, by using the ‘Critical Appraisal by the Joanna Briggs Institute for prevalence studies’ tool, adapted ad-hoc for this review [20, 21].”
MethodKusters, J. M. A., Brouwer, J. G. M., BENTHEM, B. H. B. V., Heijne, J. C. M., & van der Loeff, M. F. S. (2023) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiad109 · Cited by 9
“Assessment for quality and potential bias was done using of the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data [26] by J. K. and J. B., independently.”
MethodWork outcomes in public safety personnel after potentially traumatic events: A systematic review
Wagner, S. L., White, N. C., White, M., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., Regehr, C., Alden, L. E., Buys, N. J., Carey, M. G., et al. (2024) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.23577 · Cited by 12
The prevalence of rumination syndrome and rumination disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Haworth, J. J., Treadway, S., & Hobson, A. R. (2024) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.14793 · Cited by 9
Pace, C. S., Muzi, S., Rogier, G., Ballestracci, E., & Mazzola, G. (2024) · Child Abuse Review · doi:10.1002/car.2883 · Cited by 14
Furtado, M., Davis, D., Groarke, J. M., & Graham‐Wisener, L. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11306-3 · Cited by 10
“This systematic review was conducted following the JBI approach to qualitative systematic reviews [25].”
MethodIslam, M. M., Dutta, P., Bansal, D., Gongal, G., Farag, E., Magalhães, R. J. S., Alawneh, J. I., Heller, J., & Hassan, M. M. (2025) · Transboundary and Emerging Diseases · doi:10.1155/tbed/2890693 · Cited by 9
“We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using a modi fi ed version of the critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies developed by Munn et al. [11].”
Eshetie, Y., Aytenew, T. M., Abere, Y., Belay, B. M., Birlie, T. A., Ewunetu, M., Yirga, G. K., Tesfahun, Y., Hailu, M. K., & Kefale, D. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325114 · Cited by 9
“Each study was evaluated for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data [40].”
The generational health drift: A systematic review of evidence from the British birth cohort studies
Gimeno, L., Moreno‐Agostino, D., Danka, M. N., Guo, Y., Goisis, A., Dowd, J. B., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2026) · Population Studies · doi:10.1080/00324728.2026.2652038 · Cited by 9
Prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in Indian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A meta-analysis
Hoda, F., Arshad, M., Zayed, S., Khan, M. A., Habib, M. A., & Najmi, A. K. (2025) · Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Clinical Research & Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2025.103267 · Cited by 9
Thompson, A., Quarrell, O., & Strong, M. (2025) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-025-13255-1 · Cited by 9
“We assessed the risk of bias of each study using the Joanna Brigg’s Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies [24].”
Kirkham, A. M., Paquet, M., Fergusson, D. A., Graham, I. D., Presseau, J., McIsaac, D. I., Nagpal, S., de Launay, D., Abdul, S. A., Shorr, R., et al. (2025) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103391 · Cited by 10
“Risk of bias was assessed independently by two investigators (AMK, MP) using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for incidence/ prevalence studies 26 and the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) Tool for risk factors/outcomes studies.”
InfluentialInjuries and frequent use of emergency department services: a systematic review
Laferté, C., Dépelteau, A., & Hudon, C. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040272 · Cited by 9
Prevalence of amblyopia among the children of Saudi Arabia: A systematic review, 1990–2020
Challa, N. K. (2022) · African vision and eye health · doi:10.4102/aveh.v81i1.752 · Cited by 9
Grenier, J., Rothmund, M., & Missmann, M. (2022) · Musculoskeletal Care · doi:10.1002/msc.1726 · Cited by 10
Ekrikpo, U. E., Obiagwu, P., Udo, A. I. A., Chukwuonye, I. I., Noubiap, J. J., Okpechi‐Samuel, U. S., Udoudo, U.-A. N., Tannor, E. K., Ngoka, S. C., Mbah, I. O., et al. (2023) · Pan African Medical Journal · doi:10.11604/pamj.2023.45.153.40741 · Cited by 8
“The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna-Briggs critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies [22].”
MethodEpidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Maleki, M. S., Mazaheri, S. A., Hosseini, S. H., Majdabadi, H. A., Poursadeqiyan, M., Faghihi, A., Naderi, Z., Bardsiri, T. I., Khedri, B., Amanat, N., et al. (2023) · Iranian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.18502/ijph.v52i9.13565 · Cited by 14
Ryan, H., Burgess, A., Jackson, C., Hewson‐Ravenscroft, A., & Meiser‐Stedman, R. (2023) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/apa.17059 · Cited by 9
“…meta-analysis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence was used, 37 using common quality assessment questions developed by Munn et al. 38 The risk- of-bias tool included six questions that assessed quality according to the description of sample characteris - tics, non-response rates…”
MethodZhang, Z., Huang, J., Li, Y., Yan, H., Xie, J., Wang, J., & Zhao, B. (2024) · Aging · doi:10.18632/aging.205431 · Cited by 9
“Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool was applied for quality assessment [14].”
BackgroundMethodErrázuriz, A., & Crisóstomo, N. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00364 · Cited by 9
“JBI Evidence Synthesis 2021 JBI 202 © 2021 JBI.”
MethodInfluentialde Paiva, M. H. P., Filho, V. A. M., de Oliveira, A. R. S., Cruz, K. J. C., de Araújo, R. M. S., & de Oliveira, K. A. (2022) · Revista Paulista de Pediatria · doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2023/41/2021145 · Cited by 9
Gray, T. G., Vickers, H., Jha, S., Jones, G. L., Brown, S. R., & Radley, S. C. (2018) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3819-8 · Cited by 9
Memariani, M., Memariani, H., Shahidi‐Dadras, M., Tehranchinia, Z., Ghalamkarpour, F., & Moravvej, H. (2019) · Reviews in Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1097/mrm.0000000000000177 · Cited by 9
“quality of eligible studies was judged independently by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses as described elsewhere [11].”
MethodProteomic profile of saliva collected directly from ducts: a systematic review
Esteves, C. V., de Campos, W. G., dos Santos, J. A., Velasco, S. K., Guerra, E. N. S., Siqueira, W. L., & Lemos, C. A. (2019) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03165-8 · Cited by 9
Neall, R. A., Atherton, I., & Kyle, R. G. (2015) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12739 · Cited by 9
Mouiche, M. M. M., Wafo, E. E. N., Mpouam, S. E., Moffo, F., Feussom, J. M. K., Ngapagna, A. N., Mfopit, Y. M., Saegerman, C., & Abdoulmoumini, M. (2023) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens12091076 · Cited by 8
“Quality assessment of the primary studies was done to evaluate the reliability of studies using a modified version of a critical appraisal tool developed for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence [71].”
Ghafari-Cherati, M., Karampour, A., Nazem‐Sadati, S., & Asghari, A. (2024) · Food and Waterborne Parasitology · doi:10.1016/j.fawpar.2024.e00242 · Cited by 8
“Papers were evaluated for inclusion or exclusion based on the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (Munn et al., 2014).”
MethodORAL HEALTH IMPACT AMONG CHILDREN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW UPDATE IN 2024
Lawal, F. B., John, M. T., Oladayo, A., Paulson, D. R., Theis-Mahon, N. R., & Ingleshwar, A. (2024) · Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102082 · Cited by 11
de Oliveira, F. R., Appenzeller, S., Pasoto, S. G., Fernandes, M. L. M. S., Lopes, M. L. L., Fialho, S. C. D. M. S., Pinheiro, A. C., dos Santos, L. C., Valim, V., Serrano, É. V., et al. (2025) · Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia · doi:10.1186/s42358-025-00438-7 · Cited by 8
“Methodological quality was performed by Risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence critical Appraisal Tool and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-QUADAS-2 [35, 36] (Appendix 2).”
Nambuya, S., Kalinda, C., Vudriko, P., Adriko, M., Phiri, M., Mindu, T., Wagaba, D., & Mugisha, L. (2025) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106490 · Cited by 8
Bhateja, A., Kumar, P., Gaidhane, S., Ballal, S., Kumar, S., Bhat, M., Sharma, S., Kumar, M., Rustagi, S., Khatib, M. N., et al. (2025) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2025.101374 · Cited by 9
Srichuachom, W., Krintratun, S., Chenthanakij, B., & Wongtanasarasin, W. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13049-025-01361-y · Cited by 8
“The study risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) critical appraisal checklist [20, 21].”
Somda, N. S., Adesoji, T. O., Tetteh‐Quarcoo, P. B., & Donkor, E. S. (2025) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms13040902 · Cited by 8
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies was used to assess the quality of the studies [21] and was carried out by two independent reviewers (NSS and TOA).”
Longitudinal Clinical Outcomes and Mortality from Steatotic Liver Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Kim, D. H., Ko, D., Danpanichkul, P., Ho, G. J. K., Tan, F. X. N., Sasikumar, N. A., Tham, E. K. J., Huang, D. Q., Syn, N. L. X., Zheng, M., et al. (2025) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.04.027 · Cited by 8
Zhang, X., Liu, H., Shi, J., Zhou, H., Lin, X., Zhang, H., & Zhang, T. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15101473 · Cited by 8
“Therefore, based on the Cochrane quality assessment tool, combined with an improved critical appraisal tool (High Quality Item Rating Scale) developed by Munn et al. [17], we adapted the methodology for systematic evaluation in this study and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies.”
Molla, Y. D., & Alemu, H. T. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322641 · Cited by 9
“Each study was assessed for potential selection bias, comparability, and the evaluation of outcomes [16].”
Sáenz‐Ravello, G., García, P. C., Fan, S., & Al‐Nawas, B. (2025) · Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.joms.2025.07.003 · Cited by 10
Circular economy and digital technologies: A research agenda for intelligent circular systems
Romo, M. F. R., Siva, V., Papakostas, N., Ghadimi, P., & Hargaden, V. (2025) · Resources Conservation & Recycling Advances · doi:10.1016/j.rcradv.2025.200292 · Cited by 10
Bian, J., Chen, Z., Gao, Y., Lau, F. Y., Fong, D., Choi, E. P. H., & Chau, P. H. (2025) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbaf228 · Cited by 9
Dukuze, N., Hitayezu, J., Uyisenga, J. P., Hakizimana, O., Bours, V., Uwineza, A., & Alagbonsi, A. I. (2026) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2026.1718279 · Cited by 9
“The inclusion criteria include that the article must be original research and published in a peer-reviewed journal, report a phenotype or a genetic cause of GDD or ID, and the study participants must have come from an African population (Munn et al., 2014).”
Nwoko, O. E., Kalinda, C., & Chimbari, M. J. (2022) · Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease · doi:10.3390/tropicalmed7050072 · Cited by 8
Secular trends in physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review
Pinto, A. D. A., Marques, A., & Pelegrini, A. (2022) · Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.09.004 · Cited by 8
“The critical evaluation of the articles was performed through a tool developed for studies that report prevalence data.(16) The tool consists of ten items that refer to the following questions associated with the study: adequacy, accuracy, validity of methods, interpretation, and applicability of the findings.”
MethodGillespie, B. M., Harbeck, E., Sandy‐Hodgetts, K., Rattray, M., Thalib, L., Patel, B. M., Andersson, A. E., Walker, R., Latimer, S. L., & Chaboyer, W. P. (2023) · Journal of Wound Care · doi:10.12968/jowc.2023.32.sup8a.s31 · Cited by 10
Worede, D. T., Tariku, M. K., Asresie, M. B., & Shibesh, B. F. (2023) · Global Health Research and Policy · doi:10.1186/s41256-023-00325-y · Cited by 8
“The quality of each study was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality check tool for observational studies [32].”
MethodHandley, B. L., Roberts, C. H., & Butcher, R. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207393 · Cited by 8
“These criteria, described in S2 Table, were based on published objective criteria for assessing population prevalence studies for systematic reviews [22].”
BackgroundThe Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunction in Iranian Women with Multiple
Ghasemi, V., Simbar, M., Ozgoli, G., Nabavi, S. M., Majd, H. A., Mohammadsouri, B., Fakari, F. R., & Naz, M. S. G. (2019) · Shiraz E-Medical Journal · doi:10.5812/semj.83490 · Cited by 8
Thompson, R., & Watson, T. (2019) · Physical Therapy Reviews · doi:10.1080/10833196.2019.1662206 · Cited by 8
Rajabi, A. (2020) · Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2021.62.2.1910 · Cited by 8
“Since the outbreak of Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Guangdong, China, in 2003, WHO has announced five PHEIC cases: H1N1 (2009, polio (2014), Ebola in West Africa (2014), Zika (2016) and Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2019) [8].”
BackgroundInfluentialYang, Y., Xiao, Z., Huang, J., Gong, L., & Lu, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2021.791781 · Cited by 8
“Publications were reviewed for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies (8) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to determine the overall rating confidence in the body of evidence (9).”
MethodInstruments to assess the role of the clinical pharmacist: a systematic review
Chagas, M. O., Lima, T. D. M., Rebustini, F., Noll, M. A., Queiroz, D. P. D. C., Hernandes, J. C., Chaveiro, N., Barbosa, M. A., & Porto, C. C. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02031-1 · Cited by 8
“The JBI checklist addresses critical issues of internal and external validity that should be considered when assessing the validity of study prevalence data [60].”
BackgroundJin, Y., Zhang, Y., & Liu, J. (2022) · Perfusion · doi:10.1177/02676591221130886 · Cited by 8
Alsadhan, N. M., Almaiman, A., Pujades‐Rodríguez, M., Brennan, C. A., Shuweihdi, F., Alhurishi, S. A., & West, R. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1049486 · Cited by 8
“We assessed 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 (13) and the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (14).”
MethodRuban‐Fell, B., Attilakos, G., Haskins‐Coulter, T., Hyde, C., Kusel, J., Mackie, A., Rivero‐Arias, O., Thilaganathan, B., Thomson, N., Visintin, C., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279229 · Cited by 8
“Quality assessments were conducted for all published sources included in the base case model using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data for epidemiological studies [31], Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Prognostic Studies Table 1.”
MethodFassmer, A. M., Allers, K., Helbach, J., Zuidema, S. U., Freitag, M., Zieschang, T., & Hoffmann, F. (2023) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2023.01.030 · Cited by 8
Ahmed, A., Khan, H. T. A., & Lawal, M. (2023) · Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology · doi:10.1177/23333928231178774 · Cited by 10
“This is suggestive of an association between sex and multimorbidity, evidence of which was provided in multiple studies.(14,38,39) The higher the number of diseases in the operational definition, the lower the prevalence.”
ResultQuality of the hospital infection control programs: an integrative review
Alvim, A. L. S., Couto, B. R. G. M., & Gazzinelli, A. (2020) · Revista gaúcha de enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1983-1447.2020.20190360 · Cited by 8
Adherence to PCSK9 Inhibitors in Clinical Practice
Blais, J. E., Zhong, W., Li, C. Y. V., Kongkaew, C., & Chan, A. H. Y. (2026) · JACC: Advances · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102733 · Cited by 7
Alamneh, Y. M., Getachew, M., Atnaf, A., & Abebaw, A. (2022) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121221099019 · Cited by 7
Zhang, S., Zhang, B., Wu, J., Luo, J., Shi, H., Qi, J., & Yang, H. (2023) · Congenital Heart Disease · doi:10.32604/chd.2023.025616 · Cited by 7
Jafarabadi, M. N., & Khaledi, A. (2024) · Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology · doi:10.14744/ejmo.2024.79645 · Cited by 7
Awortwe, V., Daivadanam, M., Adjorlolo, S., Olsson, E. M. G., Coumoundouros, C., & Woodford, J. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081927 · Cited by 9
“48 The JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies comprises nine items including appropriateness of sampling frame and sampling technique, adequacy of sample size, coverage of identified sample, description of study subjects and setting, validity of condition identification methods,…”
MethodOskouei, M. M., Nemati‐Anaraki, L., Panahi, S., & Asadzandi, S. (2024) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_280_23 · Cited by 7
“[21,22] Detailed information on criteria and quality assessment of studies are provided in the Appendix [Tables A1 and A2].”
MethodEpidemiology of Huntington's Disease in Latin America: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Medina, A., Pringsheim, T. M., Gautreau, S., Rivera‐Duarte, J. D., Amorelli, G., Cornejo‐Olivas, M., & Rossi, M. (2024) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.29929 · Cited by 10
“22”
Farzam, A., Karampour, A., Nazem‐Sadati, S., Sadat‐Madani, P., & Asghari, A. (2024) · Veterinary Medicine and Science · doi:10.1002/vms3.70178 · Cited by 7
“In addition to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the studies were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist (Munn et al. 2014), which consists of nine questions/parts regarding sample size, statistical analysis, sample explanations, confounding factors and subgroup analysis.”
Ghorbani, A., Asghari, A., Mohammadi, M. R., Badri, M., Shamsi, L., Hanifeh, F., Mohammadi‐Ghalehbin, B., & Bastaminejad, S. (2025) · Veterinary Medicine and Science · doi:10.1002/vms3.70309 · Cited by 7
Edu-Mensah, M., Feeley, C., Walker, S., & Stacey, T. (2025) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2025.104426 · Cited by 9
Prevalence of Bruxism in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
de Sales, A. D. N., Almeida, R. D. A. C., Barbosa, A. T. L., Raposo, J. C. D. S., Júnior, J. L. C., Gusmão, B. D. A., Dias, R. D. F., & Godoy, F. (2025) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.14039 · Cited by 7
Afolabi, A. O., Ehizele, A., Nnawuihe, U. C., Nwaokorie, F. O., Nwaozuru, U., Owotade, F. J., Lusher, J. M., Eleje, G. U., Alade, O. T., Akinsolu, F. T., et al. (2025) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-025-06504-2 · Cited by 7
“The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist [45] was used to appraise the quality of included studies.”
Prevalence of dry eye disease in African populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ismail, M. F., Khalafalla, I., & Qarbote, A. I. (2025) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-025-04290-7 · Cited by 7
“This JBI checklist examines several factors, including representativeness of the sample, recruitment methods, sufficiency of sample size, validity in diagnosing disease, and confounders'control [15].”
Kaso, A. W., Habtamu, A., Haftu, H. K., Agero, G., Jima, G. H., Kaso, T., Hailu, A., Biesma, R. G., & Stekelenburg, J. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13723-4 · Cited by 7
“%) were classified as high risk, moderate risk, and low risk of bias based on the computed [35, 36].”
Kotsifaki, A., Malliaras, P., Byron, C., Marques, J. B., & Korakakis, V. (2026) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-026-02397-5 · Cited by 7
“Two independent reviewers (RK and CB) assessed the risk of bias for all included studies using the Checklist for Prevalence Studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute [26].”
Chafik, K., Barich, F., Aslaou, F., Laamırı, F. Z., & Barkat, A. (2023) · The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.24953/turkjped.2022.182 · Cited by 7
Vitturi, B. K., Rahmani, A., Montecucco, A., Dini, G., & Durando, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1217843 · Cited by 7
“The quality assessment was performed with the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data which was developed and validated by the Joanna Briggs Institute (23).”
MethodCrowder, L., Colloc, T. N. E., Surendran, S., McGregor, S., & Kilgariff, J. K. (2024) · International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · doi:10.1111/ipd.13161 · Cited by 7
Sadeghi, A. (2024) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.1901 · Cited by 6
Abdilahi, S. A., Osman, M. O., & Abate, K. H. (2024) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/20503121241259862 · Cited by 7
“Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) 21 was applied for critical appraisal of incorporated studies prior to data extraction.”
MethodPugliesi, A., de Brito, D. C. S. E., Duffles, G., Cantali, D. U., Pasoto, S. G., de Oliveira, F. R., Valim, V., Lopes, M. L. L., Miyamoto, S. T., Fernandes, M. L. M. S., et al. (2024) · Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia · doi:10.1186/s42358-024-00391-x · Cited by 7
“The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [13] (Supplementary Material).”
MethodA Systematic Review of Occult Contralateral Neck Metastasis in Tonsillar Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Punjabi, N. A., Sharma, A., Park, J. J., Kennedy, K., & Inman, J. C. (2024) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.31677 · Cited by 7
A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-suicidal self-injury among incarcerated juveniles
Barker, C. H., Gibson, J., Tusa, R., Pearson, C., Mack, A. A., Sukhdeo, S., & Bailey, R. K. (2024) · Academia Mental Health and Well-Being · doi:10.20935/mhealthwellb7334 · Cited by 7
Prevalence of Supine Hypertension in Alpha‐Synucleinopathies: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Lopes, P. R. M., Filho, F. L. W., Filho, F. D. S. M. M., Falcão, C. E. R., Arca, V. M., & Parmera, J. B. (2025) · Movement Disorders Clinical Practice · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70142 · Cited by 7
Wulandari, L. P. L., Guy, R., & Kaldor, J. M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238639 · Cited by 7
“The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies was used to assess the quality of the study included [34].”
MethodAmiri, F. B., Tavasoli, S., Borumandnia, N., & Taheri, M. (2021) · Iranian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.18502/ijph.v50i7.6617 · Cited by 7
“studies and guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews of prevalence studies (11, 12).”
BackgroundTooth brushing practice in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Sahile, A. T., Wondimu, M. T., & Fikrie, E. M. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33541-0 · Cited by 7
Herpes simplex virus type 1 in periapical pathoses: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Arduino, P. G., Alovisi, M., & Petti, S. (2023) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.14645 · Cited by 7
Nerve identification during open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analyses
Moseholm, V. B., Baker, J. J., & Rosenberg, J. (2023) · Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00423-023-03154-2 · Cited by 7
“The Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for observational studies [13] was used for bias assessment of observational studies.”
MethodGao, Z., Zhang, Y., Shan, H., Shi, L., Liu, J., Xu, M., Zeng, P., Liu, Y., & He, M. (2017) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/trf.14162 · Cited by 8
“Considering this cross-sectional study, combined with the applicability of the quality assessment, all included studies were assessed for methodologic quality using the prevalence critical appraisal instrument developed by Munn and colleagues.(11)”
MethodFemtolaser-assisted keratoplasty: Surgical outcomes and benefits
Adeyoju, J., Konstantopoulos, A., Mehta, J. S., & Hossain, P. N. (2020) · Journal of EuCornea · doi:10.1016/j.xjec.2020.05.001 · Cited by 7
“Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic review tools were used for appraisal [17].”
MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of CA VI, AMBN, and TUFT1 polymorphisms and dental caries risk
Sharifi, R., Shayan, A., Jamshidy, L., Mozaffari, H. R., Hatipoğlu, Ö., Tadakamadla, S. K., & Sadeghi, M. (2021) · Meta Gene · doi:10.1016/j.mgene.2021.100866 · Cited by 7
Bitta, M. A., Kariuki, S. M., Abubakar, A. A., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2018) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13540.2 · Cited by 7
Prevalence of mental disorders in Uganda: a systematic review protocol
Opio, J. N., Tufănaru, C., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003626 · Cited by 6
Datta, K., Bhutambare, A., & Mallick, H. N. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.12.29.23300624 · Cited by 7
Abraham, G., Gelana, B., Yitbarek, K., & Sudhakar, M. N. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-01920-9 · Cited by 7
Benites, C., Awan, M. U., Patel, H. S., Pandit, S., Shifchik, A., Harmon, S. R., Malisetyan, T., Angel, S., Goldrich, D. Y., & Demory, M. L. (2024) · American Journal of Otolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104333 · Cited by 6
Prevalence of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally on noncancer‐related imaging: a review
Das, A., Bonney, A., & Manser, R. L. (2024) · Internal Medicine Journal · doi:10.1111/imj.16502 · Cited by 6
Malan, L., Zandberg, L., Visser, M., Wicks, M., Kruger, H. S., & Faber, M. (2024) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s136898002400137x · Cited by 6
Khazaee-Pool, M., Pashaei, T., Zarghani, M., & Ponnet, K. S. (2024) · Infectious Diseases of Poverty · doi:10.1186/s40249-024-01253-w · Cited by 6
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
