Assessment of risk of bias for the 18 studies included in the individual participant data meta-analysis.
- Charles S. Morrison (483821)
- Pai-Lien Chen (565932)
- Cynthia Kwok (685407)
- Jared M. Baeten (192991)
- Joelle Brown (230035)
- Angela M. Crook (523416)
- Lut Van Damme (360335)
- Sinead Delany-Moretlwe (230038)
- Suzanna C. Francis (230018)
- Barbara A. Friedland (206437)
- Richard J. Hayes (230027)
- Renee Heffron (196155)
- Saidi Kapiga (247732)
- Quarraisha Abdool Karim (25204)
- Stephanie Karpoff (685408)
- Rupert Kaul (34935)
- R. Scott McClelland (80194)
- Sheena McCormack (308068)
- Nuala McGrath (230042)
- Landon Myer (138517)
- Helen Rees (196182)
- Ariane van der Straten (230049)
- Deborah Watson-Jones (230055)
- Janneke H. H. M. van de Wijgert (230022)
- Randy Stalter (685409)
- Nicola Low (62560)
Publication date
January 2015
DOIAbstract
<p><sup>a</sup>Important confounders include pregnancy status, coital frequency, marital status/living with partner, transactional sex; “yes” indicates all measured; “no” indicates one or more missing.</p><p><sup>b</sup>Lower risk of bias based on “yes” to all: ≥80% followed at 12 mo, measurement of important confounders, contraceptive method measured every 3 mo or more frequently, and ≥10% in no-HC comparison group.</p><p><sup>c</sup>Follow-up visits every 6 mo.</p><p>Assessment of risk of bias for the 18 studies included in the individual participant data meta-analysis.</p
Add to ORKG