Skip to main content

Table 1 Details of studies included in NMA for the safe storage of other household products outcome

From: Using threshold analysis to assess the robustness of public health intervention recommendations from network meta-analyses: application to accident prevention in households with children under five

Intervention Comparison

Study Number

Study

Study quality and Risk of Bias

Safe storage of other household products/Total number of households

Usual care (1) vs

Education (2)

1

Kelly (1987), RCT, USA

A = U,B = Y,F = N

43/54

49/55

2

Nansel (2002)a, RCT, USA

A = Y,B = U,F = Y

65/89

66/85

3

McDonald (2005), RCT, USA

A = Y,B = U,F = N

3/57

6/61

4

Gielen (2007), RCT, USA

A = Y,B = N,F = Y

44/62

57/73

5

Nansel (2008), Non-RCT, USA

A = U,B = N,F = N

59/73

117/144

Usual care (1) vs Education + Free/low cost Equipment (3)

6

Woolf (1992), Cluster-RCT, USA

A = U,B = Y,F = N

60/151

89/150

7

Clamp (1998), RCT, UK

A = U,B = N,F = Y

49/82

59/83

Usual care (1) vs

Education + Equipment + Home Safety inspection (4)

8

Kendrick (1999), Cluster non-RCT, UK

B = N,F = N,C = Y

317/367

322/363

9

Swart (2008), Non-RCT, South Africa

A = U,B = Y,F = Y

46.86/57.96b

50.87/58.27b

10

Hendrickson (2002), USA, RCT

A = N,B = N,F = Y

14/40

34/38

Usual care (1) vs

Education + Equipment (5)

11

Watson (2005), Cluster-RCT, UK

A = Y,B = N,F = Y

327/669

368/693

Education (2) vs

Education + Equipment (3)

12

Posner (2004), RCT, USA

A = Y,B = Y,F = N

22/47

34/49

Education (2) vs

Education + Equipment (5)

13

Sznajder (2003), RCT, France

A = Y,B = N,F = Y

32/41

40/48

Education + equipment (3) vs

Equipment only (7)

14

Dershewitz (1977), RCT, USA,

A = U,B = Y,F = N

1/101c

0/104c

Education + Equipment + home Safety inspection (4) vs

Education + equipment + home safety inspection + Fitting (6)

15

King (2001), RCT, USA

A = Y,B = Y,F = Y

261/469

273/482

  1. Last column includes the number of households with safe storage out of the total number of households
  2. Abbreviations:
  3. 1.A Adequate allocation concealment, B Blinded outcome assessment, C The prevalence of confounders does not differ by more than 10% between treatment arms, CBA Controlled before-and-after study, F At least 80% of participants followed up in each arm, NMA Network meta-analysis, RCT Randomised clinical trial, U Unclear, Y Yes, N No, NR Not reported/not relevant
  4. 2.aTwo intervention arms were combined (tailored advice and tailored advice + care provider feedback)
  5. 3.bFigures adjusted for the effect of clustering using ICC and method reported in Achana et al. (2015) [8]
  6. 4.cContinuity correction applied by adding 0.5 and 1 to denominator and numerator to account for the zero events reported (no households that were assessed safely stored other household products)
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us