The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence

Munn, Zachary; Moola, Sandeep; Riitano, Dagmara; Lisy, Karolina

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71

Cited by 1,025 publications

(810 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

796

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus. After this process the included studies were assessed for methodological quality based on the full-published paper independently by both SS and CMS using the prevalence critical appraisal instrument developed by Munn et al 11 Criteria used to judge quality are provided in Figure 1. Data were independently extracted from eligible studies by two reviewers (SS and CMS), and the resulting data were verified by a third reviewer (JGL).…”

Section: Quality Assessment and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review

Sheeladevi

Lawrenson

Fielder

et al. 2016

Eye

243

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Childhood cataract is an avoidable cause of visual disability worldwide and is a priority for VISION 2020: The Right to Sight. There is a paucity of information about the burden of cataract in children and the aim of this review is to assess the global prevalence of childhood cataract. The methodology for the review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a literature search for studies reporting estimates of prevalence or incidence of cataract among children (agedo18 years) at any global location using the Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase up to January 2015. No restrictions were imposed based on language or year of publication. Study quality was assessed using a critical appraisal tool designed for systematic reviews of prevalence. Twenty prevalence and four incidence studies of childhood cataract from five different geographical regions were included. The overall prevalence of childhood cataract and congenital cataract was in the range from 0.32 to 22.9/10000 children (median = 1.03) and 0.63 to 9.74/10000 (median = 1.71), respectively. The incidence ranged from 1.8 to 3.6/10000 per year. The prevalence of childhood cataract in low-income economies was found to be 0.42 to 2.05 compared with 0.63 to 13.6/10000 in high-income economies. There was no difference in the prevalence based on laterality or gender. This review highlights substantial gaps in the epidemiological knowledge of childhood cataract worldwide, particularly from low and lower middle-income economies. More studies are needed using standard definitions and case ascertainment methods with large enough sample sizes.

show abstract

Section: Quality Assessment and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review

Sheeladevi

Lawrenson

Fielder

et al. 2016

Eye

243

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies were assessed for methodological quality by one reviewer (AASP) using the Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) [16]. The PCAI assesses studies for methodological quality based on 10 questions with four reply options ("yes", "no", "unclear" and "does not apply").…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of low back pain in different educational levels: a systematic review

Batista

Oliveira

2017

Fisioter. mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) can be understood through the interaction of biopsychosocial factors such as education. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether education can be considered an important risk and prognostic factor for the occurrence of LBP. Objective: To investigate the association between education and LBP. Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED and PsyINFO. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the review. The Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) was used to assess risk of bias. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7 to 10 on a scale of 0-10. There was a 23% (95% CI, 13-37) prevalence of LBP (10,582 out of a total of 99,457 cases) in the general sample at the time of assessment. The meta-analysis of studies on the prevalence of LBP in people with low, medium or high educational level found the following results, respectively: 24% (95% CI, 12-43), 27% (95% CI, 9-56), and 18% (95% CI, 5-50). The meta-regression identified heterogeneity among the studies included in the review. This can be explained by educational differences (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Occurrence of LBP varies according to educational level. Individuals with higher educational levels are less often affected by LBP than individuals with medium or low educational levels.

show abstract

“…Face validity testing checklist composed of (8) criteria that test the ease of use, logical sequence of CAT-CS Scriteria and timeliness (i.e. consumed time to complete the appraisal tool) of the developed CAT-CSS.…”

Section: Face Validity-testing Checklistmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This planning includes resources allocation and prioritization of public health initiatives according to the burden of diseases. Accuracy of prevalence studies also is a base for monitoring and evaluating the changes of diseasetrends over time [5,6,7,8,9].While utilization of research findings is crucial issue in the provision of health care. policy makers and healthcare professionals still face rapid increase in the number of published papers to decide on evidence-based actions [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, critical appraisal guides and tools are used to assist in determining whether research findings are relevant to a specific clinical or research context [11].The most important component of critical appraisal is the assessment of the strategic methodological features of the study design, the appropriateness of the used statistical analysis and relevance of the results to the clinical situation of the reader [12].Critical appraisal tool (CAT) is required to enable the reader to rate and qualify the scientific paper on the research methods and conclusion [13].There is standard CAT for all study designs such as cohort, diagnostic and randomized control trails. On the other hand, there is no standard CAT for cross sectional study design that covers all the important keys of this design [8].Bearing in mind that cross sectional and survey's studies, represent 32% of the published papers in a highly impact nursing journals including "Journal of Community Health Nursing" and "Public Health Nursing" [15]. To address this gap in current knowledge, the primary aim of the current study was to develop a critical appraisal tool that includes appropriate criteria for criticizing cross-sectional study design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of Critical Appraisal Tool for Cross- Sectional Studies (CAT-CSS)

2017

IJND

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Appraisal of research quality is important issues in interpreting primary research. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials and other research study designs are well described. However, less attention has been given to similar tools for cross-sectional studies. Aim of the study: The study aimed to develop a critical appraisal tool that includes the criteria appropriate for criticizing cross-sectional study design (CAT-CSS).Research Design: Delphi survey technique was used as an iterative multistage process. Subjects and sampling: A Delphi panel of (15) academic staff members was established by using of non-probability purposive sampling technique. Setting: The study took place at the Faculty of Nursing, Mansoura University during the period from June 2016 to January 2017.Survey tools: Tools were designed to assess study content validity and face validity of the developed appraisal tool. Results: Concerning face validity of CAT-CSS, all academic staff members (n=15) found the tool was scientifically worthy, easy to apply, presented in logical sequence, specific, unambiguous and valid for prevalence data. Concerning criterion validity, there were significant positive correlations between scores of the study validity section's domains and its overall quality scores.Conclusion: CAT-CSS showed acceptable level of content, face and criterion validity as well as it was accepted statistical reliability. Recommendations: Disseminating CAT-CSS for further testing specially for construct validity.

show abstract

The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence

Cited by 1,025 publications

References 16 publications

Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review

Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review

Prevalence of low back pain in different educational levels: a systematic review

Development of Critical Appraisal Tool for Cross- Sectional Studies (CAT-CSS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About