Table 1.
HIV prevention intervention quality assessment tool.
|
|
Completely adequate (%) | Partially adequate (%) | Inadequate, not stated, or impossible to tell (%) | |
| Representativeness | All key characteristics of study population described (50) | Some key characteristics described (25) | Minimal to no description of key characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria (0) | |
| Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria described (50) | Some description of inclusion/exclusion criteria (25) |
|
||
| Bias and confounding | Study population corresponded to larger population in all key factors (25) | Sample population differed in some minor factors to larger population (12.5) | Sample population differed in several key factors to larger population (0) | |
| Equivalent outcome assessment (25) | Minor differences in outcome assessment (12.5) | Major differences in outcome assessment (0) | ||
| Study accounted for confounding interventions with respect to effectiveness of intervention (25) | Study only partially accounted for confounding interventions with respect to effectiveness of intervention (12.5) | Study did not account for confounding interventions with respect to effectiveness of intervention (0) | ||
| Compliance rate >80% (25) | Compliance rate between 80-50% (16.7) | Compliance rate <50% (8.3) | ||
| Description of intervention | Protocol could be replicated given description of intervention and /or monitoring (100) | Some minor details excluded from explanation of intervention and/or monitoring (66.7) | No details given in description of intervention and monitoring (0) | |
| Some major details excluded from explanation of intervention and/or monitoring (33.3) | ||||
| Outcomes and follow-up | Outcome assessment procedure clearly defined (50) | Outcome assessment procedure somewhat defined (25) | Outcome assessment procedure not defined (0) | |
| Groups equivalent in attrition (50) | Some difference in attrition (25) | Major difference in attrition (0) | ||
| Statistical analysis | Statistical methods fully described and appropriate (50) | Statistical methods partially described and appropriate (25) | Statistical methods not described or absent (0) | |
| Tests addressed differences between groups and variability (50) | Tests addressed some differences between groups and variability (25) | Did not address differences between groups and variability (0) | ||
| Strength of evidence | Significant positive intervention effects (100) | Significant effect but not in the stated relevant outcome measure (50) | No significant intervention effect (0) | |
| Positive and statistically significant (P≤.05) intervention effect in ≥1 relevant outcome measure |
|
|
||
| Group equivalence | Meets all 4 criteria (100) | Meets 3 criteria (75) | Meets no criteria (0) | |
| 1. Include one or more separate control or comparison study groups. | Meets 2 criteria (50) |
|
||
| 2. Include clear description of study group comparability. | Meets 1 criteria (25) |
|
||
| 3. Include clear description of randomization method used or rationale for not using randomization technique in instances when it is not feasible |
|
|
||
| 4. Include appropriate statistical controls when equivalence is not achieved |
|
|
||