|
Quality Measure |
| Quality/rigor/relevance of IDU data in studies included in HCV meta-analysis |
|
|
| Type of study |
| Issues related to studying IDUs |
| Was one of the stated aims to study the disease in IDUs or drug users (literature indicates interest to study HCV in IDUs)? |
| Sample composition (1 = non-drug users and drug users; 2 = NIDUs and IDUs; 3 = mostly IDUs; 4 = only IDUs) |
| Was there a method for minimizing misclassification bias (e.g., track marks or multiple interview questions)? |
| Methodological issues |
| Were dates of data collection given? |
| Were the selection criteria for the sample well defined and explained? |
| Were details of recruitment methods given? |
| Were details of recruitment location given? |
| Were there any incentives offered to the participants? |
| Were participation rates given for the IDU sample? |
| What was the participation rate? |
| Did data collection methods change during the study (e.g., recruitment method; face-to-face interviewing vs. self-administered questionnaire; testing method; etc) |
| Were the statistical methods used stated (for contrasts and/or measures of association)? |
| What was the IDU sample size tested for HCV prevalence (denominator)? |
| Were the number of subjects and percentages consistent? |
| Were age characteristics given for the IDU sample? |
| Were gender characteristics given for the IDU sample? |
| Were race/ethnic characteristics given for the IDU sample? |
| Were duration of injection data given for the IDU sample? |
| Issues related to IDU-specific behaviors/characteristics |
| Were there univariate analyses of prevalence? |
| Were there multivariate analyses of prevalence? |
| Was HIV prevalence given? |
Stern et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008 8:62 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-62 |