High NSP coverage vs no/low NSP coverage: HCV incidence adjusted analyses number of HCV seroconversion
It is very uncertain whether high NSP coverage changes HCV incidence adjusted analyses number of HCV seroconversion compared with no/low NSP coverage (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
High NSP coverage vs no/low NSP coverage HCV incidence adjusted analyses number of HCV seroconversion · people who inject drugs It is very uncertain whether high NSP coverage changes HCV incidence adjusted analyses number of HCV seroconversion compared with no/low NSP coverage (very low certainty). Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.79 [0.39, 1.61] | 5 studies · 3530 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.