Table 3 Data collection form
Review title | Epidemiology of hepatitis A virus in Africa among persons aged 1–10 years: a systematic review protocol | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Study ID | Surname of first author and year article was published e.g., John 2010 | ||
1. General information | |||
Date form completed (dd/mm/yyyy) | |||
Name of person extracting data | |||
Full reference of article | |||
Study author contact details | |||
Publication type (e.g., report, abstract, full article) | |||
Study funding sources | |||
Conflict of interest | |||
Notes: | |||
2. Study eligibility | |||
Study characteristics | Eligibility criteria | Yes/no | Location in text |
Period | Between 2005 and May 2015 | ||
Setting | African population | ||
Participants | Above 1 up to 10 years | ||
Condition | Positive anti-HAV antibodies | ||
Type of outcome measure | Prevalence and/or incidence not case reports | ||
Eligibility decision | Include | ||
Exclude | |||
Reason for exclusion | |||
Notes: | |||
Do not proceed if study excluded from review | |||
3. Participants | |||
Description | Location in text | ||
Country | |||
Study setting e.g., urban, rural, hospital based | |||
Inclusion criteria (in the study) | |||
Exclusion criteria (in the study) | |||
Informed consent | |||
Total population at start of study | |||
Age of study population | |||
Sex | |||
Other relevant socio-demographics | |||
Notes: | |||
4. Methods | |||
Description | Location in text | ||
Aim of study | |||
Study design | |||
Unit of allocation (individuals, cluster, groups) | |||
Start date | |||
End date | |||
Total study duration | |||
Type of diagnostic test | |||
Ethical approval obtained for study | |||
Notes: | |||
5. Risk of bias assessment | |||
Items | Quality score | Total score | |
External validity | |||
1. Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables | (1 point) | ||
2. Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? | (1 point) | ||
3. Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR was a census undertaken? | (1 point) | ||
4. Was the likelihood of non-response bias minimal? | (1 point) | ||
Total (4 points) | |||
Internal validity | |||
1. Were data collected directly from the participants (as opposed to a proxy)? | (1 point) | ||
2. Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? | (1 point) | ||
3. Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have validity and reliability? | (1 point) | ||
4. Was the same mode of data collection used for all participants? | (1 point) | ||
5. Was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate? | (1 point) | ||
6. Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate? | (1 point) | ||
Total | (6 points) | ||
Notes: | |||
6. Outcomes | |||
Outcomes | Description as in article | Location in text | |
Case definition | |||
Unit of measurement | |||
Number of cases (prevalence) | |||
Total number of cases/total pop | # of cases | Total pop | |
Number of new cases (incidence) | |||
Total number of new cases/total pop | # of new cases | Total pop | |
Notes: | |||
7. Other information | |||
Description | |||
Key conclusions of study | |||
References to other relevant studies | |||
Correspondence required for further information | |||
Other comments | |||
Notes: | |||