Table 1.

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?