Skip to main content

Table 1 Data extract and quality assessment summary: cohort and case-control studies

From: Predictors of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in primary care among adults living in developed countries: a systematic review

Study

Design

Population, setting

Outcome: duration and follow-up

Study addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question

Participants being studied are selected from the same source populations

Indicate how many people participated

Main potential confounders identified and accounted for

How well was the study done to minimise the risk of bias or confounding?

1. Joore I.K. et al., (2015) [42]

Case-control study

102 cases and 299 controls, Amsterdam, Netherlands

HIV infection: 2002–2012

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cannot say

+

2. Damery S. et al. (2013) [17]

Case-control study

939 cases and 2576 control, UK

HIV/AIDS diagnosis: Jan 1989–Sept 2010

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

++

3. Szerlip M.A. et al. (2005) [39]

Case-control study (retrospective)

Older patients aged 55 years and over (53 cases and 106 controls), New Orleans, USA

Diagnosis of HIV infection: 6 months interval up to 12 months

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cannot say

+

4. Ellerbrock T.V. (2004) [30]

Case-control study

217 cases 395 controls, FL, USA

HIV diagnosis: 1998–2000

Cannot say

Yes

Yes

Cannot say

+

5. Burchell, A.N. (2010)

Case-control study

Gay and bisexual men 123 cases and 240 controls, Ontario, Canada

HIV infection: 1998–2006

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

++

6. Burchell, A. N. (2003) [41]

Case-control study

Adults aged 18 years and over 80 cases (seroconverts) and 106 controls, Ontario, Canada

Diagnosed HIV infection: June 1998–Dec 2001

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

++

7. Hodder, S.L. (2013) [36]

Cohort study (prospective)

N = 2099 (women aged 18–44 with 1 or more personal or partner risk factors), USA

HIV prevalence and incidence: 2009–2010 with 6-month follow-up to 12 months

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

+

8. Moran. J. (2012) [34]

Cohort study

N = 1404

Ireland

HIV infection: 2008–2011

Yes

Cannot say

Yes

No

+

9. Desai M. (2012) [38]

Cohort study

N = 328

UK

HIV infection: Sept 2010–Dec 2011

Yes

Cannot say

Yes

No

+

10. Guy R.J. (2011) [35]

Cohort study

N = 7857 (MSM) Victoria, Australia

HIV positivity: Apr 2006–Jun 2009

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cannot say

+

11. Krauskopf K. (2011) [45]

Cohort study

N = 643 (HIV-infected and at-risk men aged 49 years and older), Bronx, NY, USA

HIV infection: 2001–2006 6-month follow-up

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

++

12. Niyonsenga T (2013) [37]

Cohort study

N = 20,528 (all cases with HIV/AIDS diagnosis), FL, USA

AIDS/HIV incidence: 1998–2002

Yes

Cannot say

Yes

Cannot say

+

13. Ross, J. D. (1997) [31]

Cohort study

N = 8466 (population aged 16 and over), Lothian and Glasgow region of Scotland

HIV positive results: Jan 1989–Dec 1993

Yes

 

Yes

  

14. Gordon S. M. (1995) [32]

Cohort study

N = 32 (HIV-positive patients aged ≥ 60) Atlanta, GA, USA

HIV positivity: Jan 1985–July 1992

Yes

No

Yes

No

+

15. Marder K. (1995) [44]

Cohort study (prospective)

Intravenous drug users (99 HIV + ve patients 124 HIV − ve patients), New York City, USA

HIV infection: recruited 1988 and followed up for 3.5 years and 6-month follow-up

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

++

16. Hafner J. W. (1997) [33]

Cohort study (retrospective)

N = 344 Albuquerque, NM, USA

HIV diagnosis: 19-month period July 1993–Jan 1995

Yes

 

Yes

Cannot say

+

17. Landau R. (1997) [43]

Cohort study (retrospective)

N = 133 (A&E patients aware and unaware of HIV status), London, UK

HIV infection: 1991–1994

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

+

  1. Modified from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)
  2. Minimise risk of bias or cofounding: high quality (++) □ acceptable (+) □ unacceptable—reject 0