Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data

By Z. Munn, Sandeep Moola, K. Lisy, Dagmara Riitano, Catalin Tufanaru. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2015

2,524 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Stress, Burnout, Anxiety and Depression among Teachers: A Scoping Review (2022, methodology): “In addition, the prevalence range for the psychological conditions in high-quality studies were determined after identifying the high-quality studies for each psychological condition in this scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies ”
The global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): a systematic review (2023, methodology): “Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal instrument for prevalence studies against the following matrices: sample frame suitability, sampling strategy, sample size adequacy, study subjects and setting description, appropriate”
What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018, background): “Prevalence and/ or Incidence To determine the prevalence and/or incidence of a certain condition Condition, Context, Population (CoCoPop) [15] What is the prevalence/incidence of claustrophobia and claustrophobic reactions in adult patients undergoing MRI? [72]”