Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of the available evidence

From: Network meta-analysis of multiple outcome measures accounting for borrowing of information across outcomes

   

Outcome information (no. of events/no. of households in control versus (vs.) treatment arm)

Comparison

First author and year of publication

IPD

Safe storage of medicines

Safe storage of other household products

Possession of a PCC number

Usual care (1) vs. Education (2)

Gielen 2007

Yes

178/271 vs. 188/249Ɨ

44/62 vs. 57/73Ɨ

 

Nansel 2002

Yes

83/89 vs. 79/85

65/89 vs. 66/85

59/89 vs. 63/85

Nansel 2008

Yes

72/74 vs. 140/144†

59/73 vs. 117/144†

50/59 vs. 90/119†

Kelly B 1987

No

54/54 vs. 55/55

43/54 vs. 49/55

 

McDonald 2005

No

4/57 vs. 6/60

3/57 vs. 6/61

 

Kelly N 2003

No

  

45.56/136.68 vs. 112.95/137.63*

Usual care (1) vs. Education + free/low cost safety equipment (3)

Clamp 1998

Yes

68/82 vs. 79/83

49/82 vs. 59/83

 

Woolf 1987

No

  

29/143 vs. 47/119

Woolf 1992

No

 

60/151 vs. 89/150

59/151 vs. 117/150

Usual care (1) vs. Education + equipment (3) vs. Education + equipment + home safety inspection (4)

Babul 2007

Yes

147/149 vs. 171/173 vs. 160/163

  

Usual care (1) vs. Education + equipment + home safety inspection (4)

Hendrickson 2002

Yes

 

14/40 vs. 34/38

8/40 vs. 34/38

Swart 2008

No

70.26/79.58 vs. 74.07/80*

46.86/57.96 vs. 50.87/58.27*

 

Kendrick 1999

Yes

 

317/367 vs. 322/363

 

Usual care (1) vs. Education + equipment + fitting (5)

Watson 2005

Yes

683/738 vs. 712/762

327/669 vs. 368/693

 

Usual care (1) vs. Education + home safety inspection (6)

Petridou 1997

No

  

67.26/100.12 vs. 71.08/97.83*

Usual care (1) vs. Education + equipment + home safety inspection + fitting (7)

Schwarz D 1993

No

88.42/248.37 vs. 128.16/248.37*

  

Phelan 2011

No

  

16/138 vs. 71/139

Usual care (1) vs. Home visit (8)

Johnson 2006

No

  

82/91 vs. 222/232†

Education (2) vs. Education + equipment (3)

Posner 2004

Yes

14/47 vs. 19/49

22/47 vs. 34/49

27/47 vs. 35/49

Education (2) vs. Education + equipment + fitting (5)

Sznajder 2003

Yes

44/49 vs. 43/45

32/41 vs. 40/48

 

Education + equipment + home safety inspection (4) vs. Education + equipment + home safety inspection + fitting (7)

King J 2001

No

 

261/469 vs. 273/482

 

Education + equipment (3) vs. Equipment (9)

Dershewitz 1979

No

22/101 vs. 20/104

1/101 vs. 0/104

 
  1. Treatment abbreviation and codes:
  2. Usual care = UC (1).
  3. Education = E (2).
  4. Education + free/low cost equipment = E + FE (3).
  5. Education + equipment + home safety inspection = E + FE + HSI (4).
  6. Education + equipment + fitting = E + FE + F (5).
  7. Education + home safety inspection = E + HSI (6).
  8. Education + equipment + home safety inspection + fitting = E + FE + HSI + F (7).
  9. Education + home visit = E + HV (8).
  10. Free/low cost equipment = FE (9).
  11. *Effective sample size reported for cluster randomised studies after adjusting clustering, hence not whole numbers (details given in Kendrick et al. 2012 [31]).
  12. ƗThe IPD for Gielen 2007 shows information on safe storage of medicines and safe storage of other household products was collected from different sets of households in this study (i.e. all the households that provided information for storage of medicines had missing data for safe storage of other household products and vice versa). Hence the Gielen 2007 IPD was not used to estimate the within-study correlations. †The intervention arms of Nansel 2008 and Johnson 2006 [32] comprises two groups that received different versions of a home safety intervention. The two versions were considered to be similar, hence combined into one intervention group for the analysis reported here.
Back to article page

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us