98%
921
2 minutes
20
Cross-sectional studies are a useful observational study design that provides a snapshot of a population's health status at a specific moment in time. Analytical cross-sectional studies are often included in systematic reviews investigating the etiology or risk of diseases, and descriptive cross-sectional studies are often used to determine the prevalence of a disease. As required of all studies that meet eligibility criteria for a systematic review, analytical cross-sectional studies should be subjected to appropriate critical appraisal of their methodological quality to determine the risk of bias. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group is currently undertaking a comprehensive revision of the entire suite of JBI critical appraisal tools to align with recent advances in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of analytical cross-sectional studies. Applying tools such as the revised JBI tools within systematic reviews allows for end users to make informed decisions using the evidence. We discuss major changes from the previous iterations of this tool and justify these changes within the context of the broader advancements to risk-of-bias assessment science. We also offer practical guidance for the use of this revised tool, and provide examples for interpreting the results of risk-of-bias assessment for analytical cross-sectional studies to support reviewers including these studies in their systematic reviews.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00523 | DOI Listing |
Support Care Cancer
September 2025
Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of WI-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Purpose: For cancer survivors, self-efficacy is needed to manage the disease and the effects of treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer-related healthcare, which may have impacted self-management self-efficacy. We investigated self-efficacy reported by cancer survivors during COVID-19, including associations with healthcare disruptions, distress, and general health.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNed Tijdschr Geneeskd
September 2025
UMC Utrecht, afd. huisartsgeneeskunde, Julius Centrum voor Gezondheidswetenschappen en Eerstelijns Geneeskunde, Utrecht.
Objective: To investigate sex differences in the pharmacological treatment of hypertension in primary care.
Design: Cross-sectional study among 14,384 patients with hypertension from the Julius General Practitioners' Network, without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, treated with antihypertensive medications.
Methods: We compared men and women in the number and type of prescribed antihypertensives and their blood pressure.
J Physician Assist Educ
September 2025
Chris Gillette, PhD, is a professor and director of Research and Scholarship, Department of PA Studies and also a professor of Department of Epidemiology and Prevention at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Introduction: There has long been a shortage of health care providers in rural areas. Interventions that have been shown to increase rural recruitment have yet to be explored in physician associates (PAs). This study seeks to identify the association between PA training site and first job location.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTransl Vis Sci Technol
September 2025
Department of Ophthalmology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Purpose: Melbourne rapid fields (MRF) online perimetry is web-based software that allows white-on-white threshold perimetry using any computer. This study assesses the perimetric outcomes of MRF10-2 protocol via laptop computer in comparison to Humphrey field analyzer (HFA).
Methods: This prospective and cross-sectional study included 91 eyes from 91 Japanese glaucoma patients.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
September 2025
Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Purpose: To characterize corneal immune cell morphodynamics and nerve features, and define the in vivo immune landscape in older adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), relative to healthy age-matched adults.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 16 HIV-positive individuals receiving ART and 15 age-matched controls underwent ocular surface examinations and functional in vivo confocal microscopy (Fun-IVCM). Time-lapsed videos were created to analyze corneal immune cells (T cells, dendritic cells [DCs], macrophages).