Guidelines for evaluating prevalence studies

Abstract

As stated in the first issue of Evidence-Based Mental Health, we are planning to widen the scope of the journal to include studies answering additional types of clinical questions. One of our first priorities has been to develop criteria for studies providing information about the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, both in the population and in specific clinical settings. We invited the following editorial from Dr Michael Boyle to highlight the key methodological issues involved in the critical appraisal of prevalence studies. The next stage is to develop valid and reliable criteria for selecting prevalence studies for inclusion in the journal. We welcome our readers contribution to this process. Abstract of: Hotopf M, Hardy R, Lewis G. Discontinuation rates of SSRIs and tricylcic antidepressants: a meta-analysis and investigation of heterogeneity.

Opportunistic testing for urogenital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in south-western Switzerland, 2012: a feasibility study

“…Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias related to methodological aspects of included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised controlled trials (RCT) [17], and published guidelines for crosssectional prevalence studies [18]. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.…”

“…Criteria were developed to determine whether each feature had been adequately addressed, not adequately addressed, or if there was insufficient information to decide. An adequate response rate was defined by Boyle as >80% [18]. There were no studies in this review with such a high response rate so we reported those with a response rate of >60% and >70%.…”

“…Studies from countries with no population-based survey were read in detail. A hierarchy of study methods based on study population, setting, and method of enrolment was developed, based on criteria for evaluating crosssectional prevalence studies [18]. For each Member State, the study judged to be the least biased was selected and the estimate of chlamydia positivity was used to provide an estimate of chlamydia prevalence.…”

“…The items assessed included [18]: if the target population was representative of the study country and clearly defined, if the source population was representative of the target population, similarity of responders and nonresponders, if a sample size calculation had been described and was reached, if standardised data collection methods were used, if chlamydia infection was detected using a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), if appropriate statistical methods were used (e.g. weighting) to account for the sampling design.…”

Prevalência da dor lombar no Brasil: uma revisão sistemática

“…Various studies 13,14,15,16,17,18,19 in recent years have attempted to understand more about low back pain and how to manage it. However, precise estimates of low back pain prevalence are necessary to elucidate the developmental perspective of low back pain in different countries 20 . Prevalence studies are widely used in epidemiology due their economic feasibility and easiness, with relatively short duration, providing indicators of the community's health situation, based on evaluation of the individual health status in each member of the group and producing global health indicators for the target group 21 .…”