Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36302576›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

Studies of prevalence: how a basic epidemiology concept has gained recognition in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diana Buitrago-Garcia, Georgia Salanti, Nicola Low

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Marital satisfaction among women: an exploratory study of a sample from Egyptian society.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Prevalence and associated risk factors of uterine fibroids in the Kingdom of Eswatini.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Diana Buitrago-GarciaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern Faculty of Medicine, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9761-206X
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern Faculty of Medicine, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-8508
Nicola LowInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern Faculty of Medicine, Bern, Switzerland nicola.low@ispm.unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-4817-8986

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevalence measures the occurrence of any health condition, exposure or other factors related to health. The experience of COVID-19, a new disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, has highlighted the importance of prevalence studies, for which issues of reporting and methodology have traditionally been neglected.

objectiveThis communication highlights key issues about risks of bias in the design and conduct of prevalence studies and in reporting them, using examples about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. SUMMARY: The two main domains of bias in prevalence studies are those related to the study population (selection bias) and the condition or risk factor being assessed (information bias). Sources of selection bias should be considered both at the time of the invitation to take part in a study and when assessing who participates and provides valid data (respondents and non-respondents). Information bias appears when there are systematic errors affecting the accuracy and reproducibility of the measurement of the condition or risk factor. Types of information bias include misclassification, observer and recall bias. When reporting prevalence studies, clear descriptions of the target population, study population, study setting and context, and clear definitions of the condition or risk factor and its measurement are essential. Without clear reporting, the risks of bias cannot be assessed properly. Bias in the findings of prevalence studies can, however, impact decision-making and the spread of disease. The concepts discussed here can be applied to the assessment of prevalence for many other conditions.

conclusionsEfforts to strengthen methodological research and improve assessment of the risk of bias and the quality of reporting of studies of prevalence in all fields of research should continue beyond this pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19BiasHumansPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19EPIDEMIOLOGYSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID36302576
PMCPMC9620521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.