Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
Studies involving human subjects and fulfilling the following criteria will be included:
- Study designs: cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies
- Study participants: ART-naïve patients (aged 15 years or above), living with HIV/AIDS worldwide.
- Clinical outcomes: the prevalence of any of the following: obesity, hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidaemia (high TC, high LDL-C, high TG, low HDL-C) or sufficient data for estimating the prevalence, with/without HIV specific factors (time since diagnosis, WHO stage, viral load and/or CD4 count).
- Time-period: we will consider all published and unpublished data available up to the time of the review.
- Study settings: health facilities or community-based settings.
- Language: all studies reported in the English or French languages.
- For studies reported more than once, the article with the largest number of participants will be included.
Exclusion criteria
Studies with the following characteristics will be excluded:
- Studies lacking prevalence measurements or sufficient data to perform these estimates even after contacting the primary investigators.
- Case series, case reports, reviews, clinical trials, commentaries and editorials.
- Studies not performed in human participants or published in languages other than English and French.
Sources of Information
The systematic review’s methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Guidelines, (see Additional file 1) (23).
Search strategy for identifying studies
Electronic searches
We will undertake a comprehensive electronic search across PubMed-MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information and Africa Journals Online databases to identify relevant studies. The search shall be conducted using a predefined comprehensive and sensitive search strategy that will comprise combinations of MESH terms, CINAHL headings, and free words relating to cardiometabolic risk factors, ART-naïve and HIV/AIDS (Table 1). We will further use controlled vocabularies synonyms to identify related terms.
Table 1
PubMed-MEDLINE Search Strategy
Search
|
Search Terms
|
Hits
|
1
|
Cardiometabolic diseases[tw] OR Cardiometabolic disease[tw] OR Cardiometabolic syndrome[tw] OR Cardiometabolic traits[tw] OR Cardiometabolic risk factors[tw] OR Cardiometabolic factors[tw] OR cardiovascular[tw] OR Metabolic Syndrome[tw] OR Metabolic Syndrome X[MeSH Terms] OR Reaven Syndrome[tw] OR syndrome X[tw]
|
|
2
|
Obesity[MeSH Terms] OR obesity[tw] OR obese[tw] OR overweight[tw] OR adiposity[tw] OR body mass index[tw] OR BMI[tw] OR Waist circumference[tw] OR waist [tw] OR hip circumference[tw] OR waist-to-hip ratio[tw] OR waist-to-height ratio[tw]
|
|
3
|
Hypertension[MeSH Terms] OR High blood pressure [tw] OR raised blood pressure[tw] OR Blood pressure[tw] OR systolic blood pressure[tw] OR diastolic blood pressure[tw] OR SBP[tw] OR DBP [tw] OR elevated blood pressure [tw]
|
|
4
|
Diabetes mellitus[MeSH Terms] OR diabetes[tw] OR diabetes mellitus[tw] OR type 2 diabetes mellitus[tw] OR type 2 diabetes[tw] OR glucose[tw] OR hyperglycemia[tw] OR hyperglycaemia[tw] OR Glycated haemoglobin[tw] OR HbA1c[tw] OR Impaired fasting glucose[tw] OR Fasting glucose[tw] OR dysglycemia[tw] OR dysglycaemia[tw] OR Glycated hemoglobin[tw]
|
|
5
|
Dyslipidemia[MeSH Terms] OR dyslipidaemia[tw] OR dyslipidemia[tw] OR lipids[tw] OR lipid[tw] OR cholesterol[tw] OR hyperlipidemia[tw] OR hyperlipidaemia[tw] OR hypercholesterolemia[tw] OR hypertriglyceridemia[tw] OR triglyceride[tw] OR triglycerides[tw] OR total cholesterol[tw] OR HDL[tw] OR LDL[tw] OR TG[tw] OR TCtw] OR VLDL[tw] OR hyperlipoproteinemia[tw] OR hyperlipidaemia[tw] OR Lipid disorder[tw] OR HDL cholesterol[tw] OR high-density lipoprotein cholesterol[tw] OR LDL cholesterol[tw] OR low-density lipoprotein cholesterol[tw] OR HDL-C[tw] OR LDL-C[tw] OR hyperlipidaemia[tw]
|
|
6
|
ART-naive[tw] OR ART naive[tw] OR untreated[tw] OR Antiretroviral therapy naive[tw] OR Non-ART[tw] OR Non-ART users[tw] OR ART-unexposed[tw] OR HAART-naive[tw] OR HAART naive[tw] OR HAART-untreated[tw] OR HAART unexposed[tw] OR ARV-unexposed[tw]
|
|
7
|
HIV[MeSH Terms] OR HIV[tw] OR HIV/AIDS[tw] OR human immunodeficiency virus[tw] OR acquired immunodeficiency syndrome[tw] OR AIDS[tw] OR acquired immunodeficiency syndrome[MeSH Terms]
|
|
8
|
#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5
|
|
9
|
#6 AND #7 AND #8
|
|
Grey literature
We will search reference lists of relevant citations via Web of Science and scan the reference lists of review papers and conference proceedings. We will also examine publications on the websites of key organisations such as UNAIDS, WHO, and the International AIDS Society. Key experts in the field will be contacted for any unpublished study.
Study Records
Data management
Search results shall be collected into EPPI-Reviewer software for de-duplication. Well-structured and standardized questions developed in accordance to the inclusion criteria shall be used for screening studies in EPPI-Reviewer.
Screening
Two investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts using the aforementioned inclusion criteria. Full texts will then be obtained and screened using a standardised and pre-tested form to include eligible studies. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or by consulting a third investigator. We will contact corresponding authors of potentially eligible studies for relevant data that were not reported. Reasons for exclusion of non-eligible studies will be documented. The whole selection process will be summarised in a PRISMA flow chart (Additional File 2).
Data extraction
The data for this review will be extracted using a purposeful design and piloted extraction form designed on LimeSurvey. Two investigators will independently extract data from included studies and any inconsistencies or disagreement shall be resolved by consensus or consultation with the third investigator.
Data Items
The data to be extracted will include 1) Author and paper details [first author name, year of publication, language of publication]; 2) Study characteristics [country, study design, coverage (national or sub national), study setting (urban vs rural or both), study period, sampling method, participants age limit, sample size, response rate]; 3) Participants’ characteristics [mean or median age and age range, gender (proportion of males), employment status, level of education, lifestyle habits (smoking, alcohol misuse), 4) HIV-related factors (time since diagnosis, severity of the disease, CD4 count and/or viral load, mean/median CD4, proportion with CD4 count <200, median duration of HIV or on ART, ART regimens); and 5) Prevalence measures [number of participants with CMRFs of interest and definition of each CMRF]. 6) Association of HIV specific factors and CMRFs (measure of association, effect size estimate, standard error of effect size and adjustment for confounders)
Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias
Two reviewers will independently score the quality of the included studies. For each study, the risk of bias and evaluation of methodological quality will be checked using the risk of bias tool for prevalent studies checklist adopted from Hoy et all (24) (Table 2). The overall risk of bias will be scored and summarised as low, intermediate or high risk. Assessment of the risk of selection and attrition bias will use the Cochrane guidelines available in Review Manager V.5.4.1 (http://tech.cochrane.org/revman). Any discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or by consulting the third investigator. Inter-rater agreement on screening, data extraction and methodological quality will be assessed using Cohen’s κ coefficient (25). The risk of bias and quality scores will be presented in a table.
Table 2
Quality assessment checklist for prevalence studies
Name of author(s):
|
Year of publication:
|
Study title:
|
Risk of bias item
|
Yes = 1
No = 0
|
External validity
|
1
|
Was the study target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables?
|
|
2
|
Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population?
|
|
3
|
Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR, was a census undertaken?
|
|
4
|
Was the likelihood of non-participation bias minimal?
|
|
Internal validity
|
5
|
Were data collected directly from the participants (as opposed to medical records)?
|
|
6
|
Were acceptable case definitions used in the study?
|
|
7
|
Were reliable and accepted diagnostic methods for diagnosing cardiometabolic risk factors of interest utilised?
|
|
8
|
Was the same mode of data collection used for all participants?
|
|
9
|
Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the calculation of the cardiometabolic risk factors of interest appropriate?
|
|
Summary of the overall risk of bias
|
Low risk
|
0–3
|
|
Intermediate risk
|
4–6
|
|
High risk
|
7–9
|
Data synthesis, analysis and assessment of heterogeneity
A summary of prevalence data will be presented by country and continent. Where population data is reported at both continental and country levels, we shall pick the most comprehensive and updated national estimates. Other materials will then be treated as duplicates and consequently excluded. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis will be conducted for identical variables across studies. For studies with sufficient data, a meta-analysis for the prevalence and associations will be conducted across all eligible studies using random effects models. The study-specific estimates will be pooled through a random-effects meta-analysis model, to obtain the overall summary estimate of the prevalence and associations across studies, after stabilising the variance of individual studies with the use of Freeman-Tukey double arc-sine transformation (26). This transformation will help reduce the effect of extremely high or extremely low measurement values on the pooled estimate. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by the Cochrane’s Q statistic and I2. I2 values of 25%, 50% and 75% will be deemed to represent low, medium and high heterogeneity, respectively. Funnel plots together with the Egger test of bias will be used to investigate the publication bias (27).
We will also conduct subgroup analyses to compare the estimates across major predictive characteristics and assess the consistency of the effects across those subgroups. Major grouping characteristics will include gender (gender-specific analysis where possible; and below vs. at or above the median proportion of men across study); age group (below vs. at or above the median), geographic region, time the study was conducted/published (below vs. at or above the median); sample size (below vs. at or above median sample size across included studies); severity of disease (WHO stage at diagnosis); study design, etc. We will report the total number of relevant factors investigated across all studies, and for each factor, the number of times it was reported to be associated with the outcome. We will further report on the measure of association used for each factor across studies, with indication of whether those measures were adjusted for confounders or not.
Data analyses will use the ‘meta’ package of the latest version of R statistical software (R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria).
Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis will help evaluate the extent to which the meta-analytical results and conclusions are altered by changes in analysis approach. We will use the leave-one-out jackknife sensitivity analysis in which one primary study is excluded at a time. This will help us assess if specific studies are influencing the overall estimates. We will then compare the new pooled prevalence or effect size estimate with that of the original one. If the new pooled prevalence or effect size measurement lies outside of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the original pooled prevalence, we will conclude that the excluded study has a significant effect and should be excluded from the final analysis
The Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill will be used to adjust estimates for the effects of potential publication bias.
Reporting of this review
The proposed systematic review will be reported following the PRISMA guidelines (28). We intend to publish a PRISMA checklist alongside the final report.
Potential amendments
We do not intend to make any amendments to the protocol, to avoid the possibility of outcome reporting bias. However, any amendments that do prove necessary will be documented and reported transparently.