SynthesisBMJ mental health2023
Tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH).
Synthesis in BMJ mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Willingness to switch to long-acting regimens among people with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.AIDS (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Suicide risk in patients undergoing hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence.Renal failure · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among engineering students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- The Prevalence of Excessive Exercise in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2025Pooled it
- Revictimisation Across Types of Interpersonal Violence: A Meta-Regression Analysis of PTSD and Associated Factors.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025Pooled it
- Post-acute withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) after stopping antidepressants: a systematic review with meta-narrative synthesis.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of pain-relief nursing on activities of daily living in patients following hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Risk and protective factors for interpersonal revictimization in people with post-traumatic stress symptoms: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.BMJ mental health · 2024Pooled it
- Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Enhanced Prevalence and Incidence Criteria (STROBE EPIC): An Extension of the STROBE Statement.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Polarization and health-related behaviors and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of cancer-related pain in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from 2001 to 2024.SAGE open medicine · 2026Review
- Mental health service coverage and gaps among adults in Europe: a systematic review.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Review
- How many specialists and residents in Clinical Psychology are required in the Spanish National Health System? A needs-based study.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- PROTOCOL: Prevalence and Risk and Protective Factors for Radicalization Among School-Aged Youth: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere is no standard tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies. For the purposes of a living systematic review during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a tool to evaluate RoB in studies measuring the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH) and tested inter-rater reliability.
methodsWe decided on items and signalling questions to include in RoB-PrevMH through iterative discussions. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users with two sets of prevalence studies. The first set included a random sample of 50 studies from our living systematic review. The second set included 33 studies from a systematic review of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorders, major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We assessed the inter-rater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item.
resultsRoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signalling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The inter-rater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa scores were 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.63), respectively.
conclusionsRoB-PrevMH is a brief, user-friendly and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for inter-rater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability and applicability should be assessed in future projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.