Additional file 4.

Table S3, Quality appraisal for SC meta-analysis. 1) Source population well described? 2) Population well described and appropriate? 3) Did participants represent those eligible? 4)? Was information on previous hepatitis C virus (HCV) reported? 5) Inclusion/exclusion criteria reported? 6) Type of treatment well described? 7) Outcome measures well described and without incongruencies? 8) Outcome measurement complete? (That is, all genotype counts reported?) 9) Assessment of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? 1) Description of what genetic model was assumed? 11) Consideration of genotyping errors and confirmation of results? 12) Information on linkage disequilibrium? 13) Information on haplotypes? 14) Spontaneous responder and non-responder groups comparison at baseline? 15? Raw data given or calculable? 16) Study sufficiently powered? 17) Statistical methods appropriate? 18) Study results internally valid (that is, unbiased)? (summary of items 5 to 8 and 14 to 17.) 19) Genetic study reliable? (summary of items 9 to 13.) 20) Results generalizable to the source population (that is, external validity)? (summary of items 1 to 4.) 21) Overall study quality? Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.

Format: PDF Size: 160KB Download file

This file can be viewed with: Adobe Acrobat Reader

JimĂ©nez-Sousa et al. BMC Medicine 2013 11:6   doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-6