Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review

Celina Borges Migliavaca · Cinara Stein · Verônica Colpani · Zachary Munn · Maicon Falavigna

253 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Epidemiology Health Education and Validation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to identify items and domains applicable for the quality assessment of prevalence studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched databases and the gray literature to identify tools or guides about the quality assessment of prevalence studies. After study selection, we abstracted questions applicable for prevalence studies and classified into at least one of the following domains: 'population and setting', 'condition measurement', 'statistics', and 'other'. PROSPERO registration:CRD42018088437. RESULTS: We included 30 tools: eight (26.7%) specifically designed to appraise prevalence studies and 22 (73.3%) adaptable for this purpose. We identified 12 unique items in the domain "population and setting", 16 in the domain "condition measurement", and 14 in the domain "statistics". Of those, 25 (59.5%) were identified in the eight specific tools. Regarding the domain "other", we identified 77 unique items, mainly related to manuscript writing and reporting (n = 48, 62.3%); of those, 24 (31.2%) were identified in the eight specific tools and 53 (68.8%) in the additional 22 nonspecific tools. CONCLUSION: We provide a comprehensive set of items classified by domains that can guide the appraisal of prevalence studies, conduction of primary prevalence studies, and update or development of tools to evaluate prevalence studies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 253 citations exist upstream.

References

2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.2003Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument 2015Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data 2012Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement 2016Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Cited by

2021Restrictive eating disorders in higher weight persons: A systematic review of atypical anorexia nervosa prevalence and consecutive admission literature 2021The global prevalence of depression and anxiety among doctors during the covid-19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2024Prevalence of depressive symptoms among children and adolescents in china: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.