Skip to main content

Table 3 Data collection form

From: Epidemiology of hepatitis A virus in Africa among persons aged 1–10 years: a systematic review protocol

Review title Epidemiology of hepatitis A virus in Africa among persons aged 1–10 years: a systematic review protocol
Study ID Surname of first author and year article was published e.g., John 2010
1. General information
 Date form completed (dd/mm/yyyy)  
 Name of person extracting data  
 Full reference of article  
 Study author contact details  
 Publication type (e.g., report, abstract, full article)  
 Study funding sources  
 Conflict of interest  
 Notes:
2. Study eligibility
 Study characteristics Eligibility criteria Yes/no Location in text
  Period Between 2005 and May 2015   
  Setting African population   
  Participants Above 1 up to 10 years   
  Condition Positive anti-HAV antibodies   
  Type of outcome measure Prevalence and/or incidence not case reports   
 Eligibility decision Include
  Exclude
  Reason for exclusion  
 Notes:
 Do not proceed if study excluded from review
3. Participants
  Description Location in text
 Country   
 Study setting e.g., urban, rural, hospital based   
 Inclusion criteria (in the study)   
 Exclusion criteria (in the study)   
 Informed consent   
 Total population at start of study   
 Age of study population   
 Sex   
 Other relevant socio-demographics   
 Notes:
4. Methods
  Description Location in text
 Aim of study   
 Study design   
 Unit of allocation (individuals, cluster, groups)   
 Start date   
 End date   
 Total study duration   
 Type of diagnostic test   
 Ethical approval obtained for study   
 Notes:
5. Risk of bias assessment
Items Quality score Total score
 External validity
  1. Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables   (1 point)
  2. Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population?   (1 point)
  3. Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR was a census undertaken?   (1 point)
  4. Was the likelihood of non-response bias minimal?   (1 point)
  Total (4 points)
 Internal validity
  1. Were data collected directly from the participants (as opposed to a proxy)?   (1 point)
  2. Was an acceptable case definition used in the study?   (1 point)
  3. Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have validity and reliability?   (1 point)
  4. Was the same mode of data collection used for all participants?   (1 point)
  5. Was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate?   (1 point)
  6. Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate?   (1 point)
 Total (6 points)
 Notes:
6. Outcomes
 Outcomes Description as in article Location in text
 Case definition   
 Unit of measurement   
 Number of cases (prevalence)   
 Total number of cases/total pop # of cases Total pop  
 Number of new cases (incidence)   
 Total number of new cases/total pop # of new cases Total pop  
 Notes:
7. Other information
  Description
 Key conclusions of study  
 References to other relevant studies  
 Correspondence required for further information  
 Other comments  
 Notes: