We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Review
Needle exchange programs for the prevention of hepatitis C virus infection in people who inject drugs: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Harm Reduction Journal 2017 May 18
BACKGROUND: Previous research on the effectiveness of needle exchange programs (NEP) in preventing hepatitis C virus (HCV) in people who inject drugs (PWID) has shown mixed findings. The purpose of this study was to use the meta-analytic approach to examine the association between NEP use and HCV prevention in PWIDs.
METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were (1) observational studies, (2) PWIDs, (3) NEP use, (4) HCV status ascertained by serological testing, (5) studies published in any language since January 1, 1989, and (6) data available for measures of association. Studies were located by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa (NOS) scale. A ratio measure of association was calculated for each result from cohort or case-control studies and pooled using a random effects model. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) models were analyzed separately. Results were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not cross 1. Heterogeneity was estimated using Q and I 2 with alpha values for Q ≤ 0.10 considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Of the 555 citations reviewed, 6 studies containing 2437 participants were included. Studies had an average NOS score of 7 out of 9 (77.8%) stars. Concerns over participant representativeness, unclear adjustments for confounders, and bias from participant nonresponse and loss to follow-up were noted. Results were mixed with the odds ratio model indicating no consistent association (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.05-5.15), and the hazard ratio model indicating a harmful effect (HR, 2.05, 95% CI, 1.39-3.03). Substantial heterogeneity (p ≤ 0.10) and moderate to large inconsistency (I 2 ≥ 66%) were observed for both models.
CONCLUSIONS: The impact of NEPs on HCV prevention in PWIDs remains unclear. There is a need for well-designed research studies employing standardized criteria and measurements to clarify this issue.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035315.
METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were (1) observational studies, (2) PWIDs, (3) NEP use, (4) HCV status ascertained by serological testing, (5) studies published in any language since January 1, 1989, and (6) data available for measures of association. Studies were located by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa (NOS) scale. A ratio measure of association was calculated for each result from cohort or case-control studies and pooled using a random effects model. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) models were analyzed separately. Results were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not cross 1. Heterogeneity was estimated using Q and I 2 with alpha values for Q ≤ 0.10 considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Of the 555 citations reviewed, 6 studies containing 2437 participants were included. Studies had an average NOS score of 7 out of 9 (77.8%) stars. Concerns over participant representativeness, unclear adjustments for confounders, and bias from participant nonresponse and loss to follow-up were noted. Results were mixed with the odds ratio model indicating no consistent association (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.05-5.15), and the hazard ratio model indicating a harmful effect (HR, 2.05, 95% CI, 1.39-3.03). Substantial heterogeneity (p ≤ 0.10) and moderate to large inconsistency (I 2 ≥ 66%) were observed for both models.
CONCLUSIONS: The impact of NEPs on HCV prevention in PWIDs remains unclear. There is a need for well-designed research studies employing standardized criteria and measurements to clarify this issue.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035315.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app