Table 1.

RoB tools considered for developing RoB-PrevMH

ID	Tool	Description	No of items/questions	Validation process
1	Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen17 1995	A tool designed to assess the quality of prevalence studies on low back pain.	Eleven methodological criteria	Not reported
2	Loney et al 18 1998	A critical appraisal tool designed to assess the methodological strengths, results and relevance of articles on prevalence of a health problem.	Eight items with a scoring system	Consensus between two assessors
3	Boyle19 1998	A guideline to critically appraise prevalence studies on psychiatric disorders, both in the general population and in specific clinical settings.	Evaluates three main items divided in 11 questions	Not reported
4	Silva et al 20 2001	A tool to assess the usefulness of prevalence studies in the context of surveillance activities.	Covers six technical aspects divided in 19 questions with a scoring system	Consensus for the scoring system
5	Shamliyan et al 13 2010	A tool for evaluating the quality of studies that examine the prevalence of chronic conditions or risk factors.	Six criteria for external validity and five for internal validity	The tool was tested in four studies of incidence or prevalence. Kappa values showed fair agreement.
6	Hoy et al 14 2012	A risk of bias tool for prevalence studies based on Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen17 1995.	Ten items plus a summary assessment.	Overall inter-rater agreement=91% Kappa=0.82 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.86)
7	Giannakopoulos et al 15 2012	An instrument for the qualitative assessment of the methodology of prevalence studies.	Ten items with a scoring system	Pilot phase Kappa for the quality score=mean 0.62±0.15 Kappa for individual questions=mean 0.78±0.27 After feedback Kappa for the quality score=range 0.94–1.00
8	Munn et al 16 2014	A critical appraisal tool for assessing studies included in systematic reviews of prevalence.	Ten questions	5-point Likert scale (one very unacceptable, 5 very acceptable) Ease of tool use=mean 3.63±0.72 Acceptability=mean 4.33±0.49 Timeliness=mean 3.94±0.57
9	The Joanna Briggs Institute21 2016	A tool to assess the methodological quality of a prevalence study and the possibility of bias.	Nine questions with an overall appraisal question.	Not reported
10	Pega et al 22 2019	A tool for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors.	Eight domains	Using a raw measure of agreement, the tool achieved substantial agreement in six domains (conflict of interest, other bias, lack of blinding of study personnel, exposure misclassification, selective reporting of exposures) and poor agreement in two domains (incomplete exposure data, selection of participants into the study).