Table 1.

HIV and Cervical cancer treatment outcome: quality assessment check list for the studies

Quality assessment domains-Prospective trials RCT/non RCT
Participation bias	Yes	No
Population of interest is adequately described for key characteristics
Study setting and geographic location is adequately described
Baseline sample is adequately described for key characteristics
Inclusion and exclusion criteria are adequately described
Patients were balanced in all aspects except the intervention
Attrition bias	Yes	No
Follow-up is sufficiently long for outcome to occur (≥6 months)
Proportion of sample completing the study is adequate (≥80%)
Description of withdrawal (incomplete outcome data) is provided
Characteristics of drop-outs versus completers is provided
Outcome measurement
Definition of outcome is provided a priori
Objective definition of outcome is provided
Data analysis and reporting	Yes	No
Alpha error and/or beta error is specified a priori
Data analysis was based on intention-to-treat analysis principle
Frequencies of most important data (for example, outcomes) are presented
Quality assessment domains – Retrospective studies
Data	Yes	No
Were treatment and/or important details of treatment exposure adequately recorded for the study purpose in the data source?
Were the primary outcomes adequately recorded for the study purpose (e.g., available in sufficient detail through data source
Was the primary clinical outcome(s) measured objectively rather than subject to clinical judgment (e.g., opinion about whether the patient's condition has improved
Were primary outcomes validated, adjudicated, or otherwise known to be valid in a similar population?
Was the primary outcome(s) measured or identified in an equivalent manner between the treatment/intervention group and the comparison group(s)?
Were important covariates that may be known confounders or effect modifiers available and recorded?
Methods	Yes	No
Was the study (or analysis) population restricted to new initiators of treatment or those starting a new course of treatment?
If one or more comparison groups were used, were they concurrent comparators? If not, did the authors justify the use of historical comparisons group(s)?
Were important covariates, confounding and effect modifying variables taken into account in the design and/or analysis?
Is the classification of exposed and unexposed person-time free of “immortal time bias”?
Were any meaningful analyses conducted to test key assumptions on which primary results are based?

RCT, randomized controlled trial.