Study ID | Bridges.org [37] | |
---|---|---|
Bias | Authors judgment | Support for judgment |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Blinding of participants and study personal were not reported. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | The blinding of outcome assessors was not specified. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Unclear risk | 88/309 missing from the intervention group; missing data are not reported for the control group. It remains unclear whether the proportion of missing data was balanced across groups |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The outcome reporting in the study report was comparable with the outcomes pre-specified in the methods. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Given the observational nature of the study there might be confounding variables that were not accounted for in the analysis (comparisons for health outcomes which serve as a proxy for TB treatment adherence) |
Study ID | Broomhead [[38] | |
Bias | Authors judgment | Support for judgment |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Blinding of participants and study personal were not reported. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | The blinding of outcome assessors was not specified. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | No missing data in both the intervention and the control group. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comparisons for health outcomes (i.e. smear conversion rate, cure rate and MDR TB rate) mentioned in text in the results but only smear conversion rate and cure rate (with significant results) were reported in the table. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Given the observational nature of the study there might be confounding variables that were not accounted for in the analysis (comparisons for health outcomes which serve as a proxy for TB treatment adherence) |
Study ID | Iribarren[40] | |
Bias | Authors judgment | Support for judgment |
Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | The random sequence generation process was not described. |
Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | The method of concealment was not described. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Blinding of participants and study personal were not reported. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | The blinding of outcome assessors was not specified |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | High risk | Additional information obtained from the primary author revealed that no data are missing for the intervention group and 9/19 for the control group. Reasons for missing data were due to non-responsiveness of the intervention group. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Initial efficacy outcomes (notification rates and sputum conversion rates) and patient acceptability were mentioned in the methods, but only patient notification rates, follow sputum smear culture and patient acceptability reported in the results. Additional obtained from the primary author revealed that data on the final outcomes are yet to be collected and published. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | The lack of description of the random sequence generation process and the method of concealment suggests that there might be confounding variables that were not accounted for in the analysis (comparisons for TB treatment adherence) |
Study ID | Owiti[39] | |
Bias | Authors judgment | Support for judgment |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Blinding of participants and study personal were not reported. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | The blinding of outcome assessors was not specified |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | No missing data in those receiving text reminders and not receiving text reminders |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Inadequately information provided as this was a conference abstract. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Given the observational nature of the study there might be confounding variables that were not accounted for in the analysis (comparisons for scheduled clinic appointment attendance which serves as a TB treatment adherence) |