As before, PS and TP each independently performed a quality asses

As before, PS and TP each independently performed a quality assessment on a 10% random sample of included studies and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus of all three authors. Randomised studies

were assessed using the methodology checklist for RCTs developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).[15, 16] This assesses the internal validity and risk of bias of the studies. Each criterion was marked as ‘well covered’, ‘adequately addressed’, ‘poorly addressed’, ‘not addressed’, NVP-BGJ398 supplier ‘not reported’ or ‘not applicable’. Overall rating of the quality of each study was then coded in tertiles: high (++) for studies that fulfil all or most of the criteria; moderate (+) for studies that fulfil some criteria; and poor (–) for studies that fulfil few or none of the criteria. For other studies (non-randomised studies and uncontrolled evaluative studies) a checklist developed by the Review Body for Interventional JAK inhibitors in development Procedures (ReBIP)1 was used. The checklist was adapted from several

sources, including the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews,[17] Verhagen et al.,[18] Downs and Black,[19] and the Generic Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology.[20] It assesses bias and generalisability, sample definition and selection, description of the intervention, outcome assessment, adequacy of follow-up and performance of the analysis. The quality assessment form was piloted and modified to suit this review. Each quality criterion was marked as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unclear’ for each of the studies. The percentage of ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unclear’ in each criteria was calculated and a stacked bar chart was plotted to show the distribution. Heterogeneity of the interventions and reported outcomes meant that it was not possible to perform meta-analysis. Therefore, data analysis was done descriptively. The included studies were categorised based on the study type, screening tools used and diseases being screened for in the intervention. The delivery of each intervention and the resources used were described. Reported outcomes that were relevant

to this review were also tabulated and features common to the studies were highlighted. The searches identified 6613 references of which 175 full-text articles were sought for further assessment. Fifty-one papers reporting triclocarban 50 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for this review (one RCT, two cluster RCTs, five non-randomised studies and 42 uncontrolled studies). The full selection process is illustrated in Figure 1. One article[21] was a secondary report of a study that was already included[22] and so was not reported separately in this review. Characteristics of the 50 included studies are shown in Table S1. Target populations were similar for all studies; they targeted ‘at-risk’ individuals, an apparently healthy population or a combination of both.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>