2023
DOI: 10.1101/2023.02.01.23285335
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH)

Abstract: Objective: Biases affect how certain we are about the available evidence, however no standard tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies exists. For the purposes of a living systematic review on prevalence of mental health disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a RoB tool to evaluate prevalence studies in mental health (RoB-PrevMH) and tested interrater reliability. Methods: We reviewed existing RoB tools for prevalence studies until September 2020, to develop a tool for prev… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study has some limitations. First, although the present study used data from multiple sources, including national surveys and health system reports, the ENSE survey relies on self-reported data rather than diagnostic interviews, which can result in biased estimates [39].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study has some limitations. First, although the present study used data from multiple sources, including national surveys and health system reports, the ENSE survey relies on self-reported data rather than diagnostic interviews, which can result in biased estimates [39].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool 1.0 for RCTs, the following domains of bias were considered: selection (random sequence generation, allocation concealment), performance, detection (blinding of participants and personnel, and outcome assessment), attrition (incomplete outcome data), and selective outcome reporting (10). We explicitly judged the risk of bias in each criterion as “low,” “high,” or “unclear” (11). If at least one of the domains was rated as high, the trial was considered at high risk of bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We excluded case series/reports, editorials, commentar- (10). We explicitly judged the risk of bias in each criterion as "low, " "high, " or "unclear" (11). If at least one of the domains was rated as high, the trial was considered at high risk of bias.…”
Section: Key Pointsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular, 30% of authors did not report the use of a tool for assessment of the risk of bias in individual studies and, amongst those that did, more than 30 different tools were used. In a systematic search, we identified 10 tools for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies [25], but only 284 (24%) of reviews in our study used one of these tools. Most of the tools listed were not designed for use with prevalence studies, such as the STROBE checklist for reporting of cross-sectional studies, which does not allow explicit assessment of risk of bias [26].…”
Section: Interpretation and Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%