Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 10.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00523. Online ahead of print.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for analytical cross-sectional studies

Timothy H Barker  1   2 , Sabira Hasanoff  2 , Edoardo Aromataris  1 , Jennifer C Stone  1 , Jo Leonardi-Bee  3 , Kim Sears  4 , Miloslav Klugar  5   6 , Catalin Tufanaru  7 , Sandeep Moola  8 , Xian-Liang Liu  9 , Zachary Munn  1   2
Affiliations

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for analytical cross-sectional studies

Timothy H Barker et al. JBI Evid Synth. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: bias assessment; cross-sectional studies; methodology; risk of bias; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs 2014;114(3):53-8.
    1. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18(1):5.
    1. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]. JBI; 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 22]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .
    1. Fletcher R, Fletcher S, Fletcher G. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
    1. Barker TH, Migliavaca CB, Stein C, Colpani V, Falavigna M, Aromataris E, et al. Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021;21(1):1-9.

LinkOut - more resources