The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews: Addressing Questions of Prevalence

Document Type : Original Article


The Joanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia


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.
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.
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.
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.


Main Subjects

  1. Webb P, Bain C, Pirozzo S. Essential epidemiology: an introduction for students and health professionals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
  2. Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. Data extraction and synthesis in systematic reviews. Am J Nurs 2014; 114: 49–54. doi: 10.1097/01.naj.0000451683.66447.89
  3. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewer’s Manual. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
  4. Pearson A, Robertson-Malt S, Rittenmeyer L. Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  5. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
  6. Pearson A. Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports 2004; 2: 45–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2004.00008.x
  7. Pearson A, Jordan Z, Munn Z. Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare. Nursing Research and Practice 2012; 2012: 792519.  doi: 10.1155/2012/792519
  8. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2011 edition. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2011.
  9. Sawyer A, Ayers S, Smith H. Pre- and postnatal psychological wellbeing in Africa: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2010; 123: 17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.027
  10. Mirza I, Jenkins R. Risk factors, prevalence, and treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders in Pakistan: systematic review. BMJ 2004; 328: 794. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7443.794
  11. Van Lancker A, Velghe A, Van Hecke A, Verbrugghe M, Van Den Noortgate N, Grypdonck M, et al. Prevalence of symptoms in older cancer patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014; 47: 90–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.016
  12. Klaassen KM, Dulak MG, van de Kerkhof PC, Pasch MC. The prevalence of onychomycosis in psoriatic patients: a systematic review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014; 28: 533–41.  doi: 10.1111/jdv.12239
  13. McGrath J, Saha S, Welham J, El Saadi O, MacCauley C, Chant D. A systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia: the distribution of rates and the influence of sex, urbanicity, migrant status and methodology. BMC Med 2004; 2:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-2-13
  14. Goto A, Goto M, Noda M, Tsugane S. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in Japan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One 2013; 8: e74699.  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074699
  15. Bahekar AA, Singh S, Saha S, Molnar J, Arora R. The prevalence and incidence of coronary heart disease is significantly increased in periodontitis: a meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2007; 154: 830–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.037
  16. Centre for Evidence-Based Management. Critical appraisal of a survey. [updated 2014 June 5]. Available from:
  17. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW. Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Dis Can 1998; 19: 170–6.
  18. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
  19. National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health (NCCEH). A Primer for Evaluating the Quality of Studies on Environmental Health Critical Appraisal of Cross-Sectional Studies. [updated 2014 June 5]. Available from:
  20. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J clin epidemiol 2012; 65: 934–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014
  21. 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.
  22. Lim ES, Ko YK, Ban KO. Prevalence and risk factors of metabolic syndrome in the Korean population--Korean National Health Insurance Corporation Survey 2008. J Adv Nurs 2013; 69: 1549–61. doi: 10.1111/jan.12013
  23. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 651–4. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00360-7
  24. Naing L, Winn T, Rusli BN. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences 2006; 1: 9–14.
  25. Daniel WW. Biostatistics:  A  Foundation for  Analysis  in  the  Health  Sciences. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.