2,992
回編集
差分
ナビゲーションに移動
検索に移動
👉 Was there a clearly identified primary outcome
→Orrell et al Adherence is not a barrier of ART S Africa AIDS 2003
==Orrell et al Adherence is not a barrier of ART S Africa AIDS 2003==
1. What is the rationale for the study? Is it clear and sensible?
*Researchers intended to determine which kind of factors influence adherence of HIV-infected African people to ART
*It is clear and sensible
2. What are the aim and objectives of the study? Are they clear and unambiguous?
*Their aim is to find out predictors of decreased adherence and virologic treatment failure.
*They are clear and unambiguous.
👉 Was there a clearly identified primary outcome
*This study's primary outcome is to determine predictors which produce adherence less than 95% and HIV-RNA copies more than 400/mL.
*The primary outcome is clearly identified.
3. What is the study design, exposure of interest and outcome of interest?
*Design is prospective cohort study within phase 3 randomized controlled trial.
*Exposures are following:
**age
**home language (English or not)
**dosing (three times a day)
**baseline viral load
**mode of ART (two NRTI)
**number of tablets (more than 10 a day)
**food restrictions
**adherence less than 95% (against virological failure)
*Outcomes are adherece less than 95% and HIV-RNA more than 400copies/mL.
4. What is the target population and how was it selected? How representative is the population?
*Target population is indigent African HIV-infected people.
*Sample is selected from Cape Town AIDS Cohort, who are the patients of U of Cape Town HIV Clinic and almost indigent.
*Sample is moderately representative of population because it is definitely indigent but chosen only from South Africa.
5. How are exposure variables and outcomes defined?
*As mentioned in answer for question 3.
6. Was there potential for misclassification of the outcome?
7. Was there potential for misclassification of the exposure?
