Background
Methods
Search strategy
Study selection
Validity assessment
Data abstraction
Statistical analysis
Results
Trial flow/flow of included studies
Study characteristics
Epidemic trends of HIV, HCV infection and HIV-HCV co-infection
Groups | Provinces | No of studies | Study Year | Prevalence (individual studies) (95% CI) | Pooled prevalence (provinces) (95% CI) | Pooled prevalence (group) (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTAs
|
Guangxi
| 3 | 17.7% (7.2-37.4%) | 17.5% (14.0-21.6%) | ||
Zhou XP, 2009 [31] | 2007 | 28.2% (22.0-35.5%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 27.9% (25.2-30.7%) | ||||
Bai Y, 2009 [33] | 2009 | 6.0% (4.2-8.4%) | ||||
Guizhou
| 4 | 20.7% (14.2-29.2%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 24.6% (21.5-28.1%) | ||||
Han XJ, 2010 [34] | 2009 | 27.0% (22.3-32.2%) | ||||
Li XY, 2009 [35] | 2009 | 0.5% (0.1-3.5%) | ||||
Wang J, 2010 [36] | 2009 | 20.3% (14.5-27.7%) | ||||
Sichuan
| 8 | 7.1% (3.8-12.9%) | ||||
Hao C, 2006 [37] | 2004 | 13.6% (10.4-17.6%) | ||||
Qian HZ, 2007 [38] | 2005 | 14.0% (11.4-17.1%) | ||||
Chen B, 2009 [39] | 2006 | 2.0% (1.0-3.9%) | ||||
Liu JK, 2009 [40] | 2006 | 14.1% (8.2-23.2%) | ||||
Dong G, 2009 [41] | 2007 | 4.3% (2.6-7.0%) | ||||
Wang Y, 2009 [42] | 2008 | 3.8% (2.6-5.5%) | ||||
Wang DY, 2009 [43] | 2008 | 21.7% (18.9-24.9%) | ||||
Yao W, 2008 [44] | 2008 | 2.3% (1.4-3.6%) | ||||
Xinjiang
| 6 | 22.0% (15.2-30.6%) | ||||
Liu JB, 2006 [45] | 2005 | 19.4% (13.4-27.1%) | ||||
Fu LP, 2007 [46] | 2006 | 33.4% (29.7-37.3%) | ||||
Fang HR, 2008 [47] | 2008 | 14.2% (12.6-16.1%) | ||||
Re ZW, 2009 [48] | 2008 | 28.6% (22.4-35.7%) | ||||
Shen L, 2009 [49] | 2008 | 14.9% (12.8-17.3%) | ||||
Yuan L, 2010 [50] | 2008 | 26.55(20.8-33.0%) | ||||
Yunnan
| 6 | 36.0% (25.6-47.9%) | ||||
Duan YJ, 2008 [51] | 2006 | 33.3% (24.8-43.2%) | ||||
Zhang MJ, 2008 [52] | 2007 | 51.8% (44.2-59.3%) | ||||
Zhuang HY, 2008 [53] | 2007 | 66.7% (51.8-78.8%) | ||||
Xue HM, 2010 [54] | 2008 | 39.3% (37.1-41.5%) | ||||
Yang GW, 2010 [55] | 2008 | 15.7% (11.4-21.3%) | ||||
Yang YC, 2011 [56] | 2009 | 23.1% (21.7-24.5%) | ||||
LTAs
|
Beijing
| 1 | 4.6% (2.7-7.8%) | 2.4% (1.6-3.5%) | ||
Du WJ, 2007 [57] | 2005 | 4.6% (2.7-7.8%) | ||||
Chongqing
| 3 | 6.8% (4.3-10.6%) | ||||
Tan XL, 2007 [58] | 2005 | 7.8% (5.5-11.0%) | ||||
Wu GH, 2010 [59] | 2007 | 9.2% (7.1-11.8%) | ||||
Zhou X, 2009 [60] | 2008 | 4.3% (3.0-6.1%) | ||||
Fujian
| 2 | 2.1% (1.1-3.9%) | ||||
Wu LH, 2007 [61] | 2006 | 2.0% (0.5-7.6%) | ||||
Zheng WX, 2009 [62] | 2006 | 2.1% (1.0-4.3%) | ||||
Gansu
| 2 | 0.7% (0.3-1.5%) | ||||
Gao LF, 2010 [63] | 2009 | 0.8% (0.2-3.2%) | ||||
Zhu XH, 2010 [64] | 2010 | 0.7% (0.2-1.7%) | ||||
Guangdong
| 13 | 3.6% (1.6-8.3%) | ||||
Dai LP, 2009 [65] | 2007 | 5.9% (2.7-12.6%) | ||||
Liu XY, 2009 [66] | 2007 | 1.2% (1.0-1.5%) | ||||
Zhang QL, 2008 [67] | 2007 | 0.2% (0.0-3.8%) | ||||
Chen W, 2009 [68] | 2008 | 20.7% (17.2-24.7%) | ||||
Chen A, 2007 [69] | 2008 | 19.6% (16.4-23.3%) | ||||
Dai LP, 2010 [70] | 2008 | 3.5% (1.8-6.6%) | ||||
Hu WS, 2010 [71] | 2008 | 9.6% (5.5-16.1%) | ||||
Li LY, 2009 [72] | 2008 | 1.0% (0.1-6.8%) | ||||
Li YF, 2009 [73] | 2008 | 2.5% (1.0-5.9%) | ||||
Wang M, 2009 [74] | 2008 | 1.3% (0.1-17.5%) | ||||
Wang CQ, 2009 [75] | 2009 | 1.9% (1.0-3.8%) | ||||
Wu ZL, 2010 [76] | 2009 | 7.9% (5.8-10.6%) | ||||
Xia L, 2010 [77] | 2009 | 1.2% (0.4-3.7%) | ||||
Henan
| 1 | 0.9% (0.2-3.6%) | ||||
Wu SX, 2009 [78] | 2008 | 0.9% (0.2-3.6%) | ||||
Hubei
| 1 | 0.1% (0.0-1.8%) | ||||
Qiu XQ, 2009 [79] | 2006 | 0.1% (0.0-1.8%) | ||||
Hunan
| 7 | 6.9% (4.1-11.4%) | ||||
Li XL, 2008 [80] | 2006 | 1.2% (0.3-4.7%) | ||||
Li XL, 2009 [81] | 2006 | 16.7% (14.2-19.7%) | ||||
Tang XY, 2007 [82] | 2006 | 14.7% (10.2-20.7%) | ||||
Chen LF, 2009 [83] | 2007 | 13.7% (10.3-18.1%) | ||||
He HX, 2008 [84] | 2007 | 9.5% (7.5-12.0%) | ||||
Chen C, 2010 [85] | 2008 | 1.9% (0.5-7.2%) | ||||
Feng YH, 2010 [86] | 2009 | 0.6% (0.2-1.8%) | ||||
Jiangsu
| 6 | 0.9% (0.5-1.5%) | ||||
Wang YP, 2009 [87] | 2007 | 1.4% (0.5-4.3%) | ||||
Feng SQ, 2010 [88] | 2008 | 1.1% (0.4-2.8%) | ||||
Hao C, 2009 [89] | 2008 | 0.6% (0.2-1.6%) | ||||
Xu GY, 2008 [90] | 2008 | 0.5% (0.0-7.3%) | ||||
Zhang MH, 2010 [91] | 2008 | 1.0% (0.3-3.0%) | ||||
Yuan ZX, 2010 [92] | 2009 | 0.2% (0.0-3.4%) | ||||
Ningxia
| 1 | 1.2% (0.5-2.6%) | ||||
Jiang A, 2009 [93] | 2007 | 1.2% (0.5-2.6%) | ||||
Qinghai
| 1 | 1.4% (0.5-3.8%) | ||||
Hao XQ, 2009 [94] | 2008 | 1.4% (0.5-3.8%) | ||||
Shaanxi
| 2 | 1.4% (0.5-3.8%) | ||||
Jia W, 2008 [95] | 2006 | 1.7% (0.7-3.9%) | ||||
Zhang HF, 2009 [96] | 2008 | 0.4% (0.0-6.3%) | ||||
Shanghai
| 2 | 1.4% (0.5-4.8%) | ||||
Liu Y, 2009 [97] | 2008 | 1.5% (0.5-4.4%) | ||||
Li T, 2010 [98] | 2009 | 1.0% (0.1-13.6%) | ||||
Zhejiang
| 3 | 0.5% (0.1-1.6%) | ||||
Cai CP, 2008 [99] | 2007 | 0.6% (0.0-8.4%) | ||||
Zhang XH, 2008 [100] | 2007 | 0.6% (0.1-4.2%) | ||||
Su MF, 2010 [101] | 2009 | 0.3% (0.0-2.3%) |
Groups | Provinces | No of studies | Study Year | Prevalence (individual studies) (95% CI) | Pooled prevalence (provinces) (95% CI) | Pooled prevalence (group) (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTAs
|
Guangxi
| 3 | 87.2% (85.4-88.8%) | 70.2% (62.6-76.8%) | ||
Zhou XP, 2009 [31] | 2007 | 88.8% (83.1-92.8%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 87.9% (85.5-89.8%) | ||||
Bai Y, 2009 [33] | 2009 | 85.5% (82.2-88.3%) | ||||
Guizhou
| 6 | 61.5% (46.1-75.0%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 76.1% (72.7-79.3%) | ||||
Wang J, 2008 [102] | 2008 | 41.6% (34.6-48.9%) | ||||
Deng CK, 2009 [103] | 2008 | 61.4% (55.9-66.7%) | ||||
Han XJ, 2010 [34] | 2009 | 60.0% (54.4-65.4%) | ||||
Li XY, 2009 [35] | 2009 | 33.5% (27.3-40.4%) | ||||
Wang J, 2010 [36] | 2009 | 86.7% (80.1-91.4%) | ||||
Sichuan
| 6 | 77.4% (71.0-82.8%) | ||||
Hao C, 2006 [37] | 2004 | 67.3% (62.2-72.1%) | ||||
Qian HZ, 2007 [38] | 2005 | 68.4% (64.4-72.1%) | ||||
Dong G, 2009 [41] | 2007 | 78.6% (74.0-82.6%) | ||||
Wang DY, 2009 [43] | 2008 | 83.7% (80.7-86.2%) | ||||
Yao W, 2008 [44] | 2008 | 82.9% (80.0-85.4%) | ||||
Zhao XH, 2009 [104] | 2008 | 80.1% (75.9-83.7%) | ||||
Xinjiang
| 5 | 64.8% (50.0-77.2%) | ||||
Liu JB, 2006 [45] | 2005 | 69.0% (60.5-76.4%) | ||||
Fu LP, 2007 [46] | 2006 | 40.0% (36.1-44.0%) | ||||
Fang HR, 2008 [47] | 2008 | 68.9% (66.5-71.2%) | ||||
Yuan L, 2010 [50] | 2008 | 72.0% (65.4-77.8%) | ||||
Re ZW, 2009 [48] | 2008 | 72.0% (64.9-78.2%) | ||||
Yunnan
| 1 | 23.8% (18.5-30.0%) | ||||
Yang GW, 2010 [55] | 2008 | 23.8% (18.5-30.0%) | ||||
LTAs
|
Anhui
| 2 | 62.3% (17.0-93.0%) | 55.5% (46.4-64.2%) | ||
Wang XR, 2007 [105] | 2007 | 36.4% (31.0-42.2%) | ||||
Zhan SW, 2008 [106] | 2007 | 82.8% (77.1-87.3%) | ||||
Beijing
| 1 | 46.4% (40.7-52.3%) | ||||
Du WJ, 2007 [57] | 2005 | 46.4% (40.7-52.3%) | ||||
Chongqing
| 2 | 76.2% (73.6-78.5%) | ||||
Zhou X, 2009 [60] | 2007 | 74.7% (71.0-78.1%) | ||||
Wu GH, 2010 [59] | 2008 | 77.2% (74.3-79.9%) | ||||
Fujian
| 2 | 48.4% (26.2-71.1%) | ||||
Wu LH, 2007 [61] | 2006 | 36.0% (27.2-45.8%) | ||||
Zheng WX, 2009 [62] | 2006 | 60.2% (54.8-65.3%) | ||||
Gansu
| 3 | 23.7% (18.0-30.7%) | ||||
Gao LF, 2010 [63] | 2009 | 23.8% (18.9-29.5%) | ||||
He XX, 2010 [107] | 2009 | 19.5% (17.6-21.6%) | ||||
Zhu XH, 2010 [64] | 2010 | 28.7% (25.3-32.4%) | ||||
Guangdong
| 8 | 63.7% (25.2-90.1%) | ||||
Liu XY, 2009 [66] | 2007 | 5.4% (4.9-5.9%) | ||||
Zhang QL, 2008 [67] | 2007 | 30.3% (24.4-37.0%) | ||||
Hu WS, 2010 [71] | 2008 | 96.0% (90.7-98.3%) | ||||
Li LY, 2009 [72] | 2008 | 67.0% (57.2-75.5%) | ||||
Li YF, 2009 [73] | 2008 | 77.0% (70.7-82.3%) | ||||
Wang M, 2009 [74] | 2008 | 81.6% (66.1-91.0%) | ||||
Wang CQ, 2009 [75] | 2009 | 77.3% (73.0-81.0%) | ||||
Xia L, 2010 [77] | 2009 | 62.2% (56.1-68.1%) | ||||
Henan
| 1 | 10.9% (7.4-15.8%) | ||||
Wu SX, 2009 [78] | 2008 | 10.9% (7.4-15.8%) | ||||
Hubei
| 1 | 94.3% (91.2-96.3%) | ||||
Peng JS, 2007 [108] | 2006 | 94.3% (91.2-96.3%) | ||||
Hunan
| 5 | 66.4% (49.3-80.1%) | ||||
Li XL, 2008 [80] | 2006 | 49.4% (41.8-57.0%) | ||||
He HX, 2008 [84] | 2007 | 58.3% (54.5-62.0%) | ||||
Chen LF, 2009 [83] | 2007 | 59.5% (54.9-63.9%) | ||||
Chen C, 2010 [85] | 2008 | 51.4% (42.0-60.7%) | ||||
Feng YH, 2010 [86] | 2009 | 93.7% (91.2-95.5%) | ||||
Jiangsu
| 10 | 61.6% (51.8-70.6%) | ||||
Xia X, 2007 [109] | 2006 | 35.0% (32.6-37.6%) | ||||
Xu YP, 2007 [110] | 2006 | 61.0% (56.1-65.6%) | ||||
Wang YP, 2009 [87] | 2007 | 70.5% (64.0-76.3%) | ||||
Feng SQ, 2010 [88] | 2008 | 52.3% (47.2-57.3%) | ||||
Hao C, 2009 [89] | 2008 | 51.8% (47.9-55.6%) | ||||
Song HB, 2010 [111] | 2008 | 66.2% (59.6-72.2%) | ||||
Xu GY, 2008 [90] | 2008 | 76.2% (67.0-83.5%) | ||||
Zhang MH, 2010 [91] | 2008 | 75.1% (70.0-79.6%) | ||||
Yuan ZX, 2010 [92] | 2009 | 56.5% (50.1-63.0%) | ||||
Wang WM, 2010 [112] | 2010 | 68.8% (62.3-74.7%) | ||||
Ningxia
| 2 | 23.0% (16.7-30.9%) | ||||
Jiang A, 2009 [93] | 2007 | 20.3% (17.0-24.0%) | ||||
Liu XP, 2010 [113] | 2009 | 28.0% (19.8-37.9%) | ||||
Qinghai
| 1 | 70.8% (65.1-75.8%) | ||||
Hao XQ, 2009 [94] | 2008 | 70.8% (65.1-75.8%) | ||||
Shaanxi
| 55.3% (43.2-66.7%) | |||||
Jia W, 2008 [95] | 5 | 2006 | 54.0% (48.3-59.6%) | |||
Li YC, 2009 [114] | 2008 | 60.6% (55.8-65.3%) | ||||
Zhang HF, 2009 [96] | 2008 | 40.0% (31.6-49.0%) | ||||
Zang JF, 2010 [115] | 2009 | 42.6% (30.9-55.2%) | ||||
Liu HB, 2010 [116] | 2010 | 73.8% (69.7-77.5%) | ||||
Shanghai
| 2 | 59.7% (54.2-64.9%) | ||||
Liu Y, 2009 [97] | 2008 | 61.2% (54.3-67.6%) | ||||
Du J, 2009 [117] | 2009 | 57.0% (47.8-65.8%) | ||||
Zhejiang
| 5 | 40.1% (24.7-57.8%) | ||||
Zhang XH, 2007 [118] | 2006 | 28.9% (16.8-45.1%) | ||||
Cai CP, 2008 [99] | 2007 | 75.9% (65.8-83.7%) | ||||
Zhang XH, 2008 [110] | 2007 | 40.6% (33.4-48.3%) | ||||
Fu YF, 2009 [119] | 2008 | 40.4% (35.4-45.6%) | ||||
Su MF, 2010 [101] | 2009 | 18.9% (14.8-23.7%) |
Groups | Provinces | No of studies | Study Year | Prevalence (individual studies) (95% CI) | Pooled prevalence (provinces) (95%CI) | Pooled prevalence (group) (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTAs
|
Guangxi
| 3 | 12.6% (4.0-33.4%) | 8.0% (4.8-12.9%) | ||
Zhou XP, 2009 [31] | 2007 | 11.2% (7.2-16.9%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 27.4% (24.7-30.2%) | ||||
Bai Y, 2009 [33] | 2009 | 5.8% (4.1-8.2%) | ||||
Guizhou
| 3 | 3.8% (0.4-29.3%) | ||||
Chang ZR, 2010 [32] | 2008 | 23.1% (20.0-26.5%) | ||||
Wang J, 2010 [36] | 2009 | 0.7% (0.1-4.8%) | ||||
Han XJ, 2010 [34] | 2009 | 2.0% (0.9-4.4%) | ||||
Sichuan
| 4 | 6.8% (2.8-15.8%) | ||||
Qian HZ, 2007 [38] | 2005 | 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) | ||||
Dong G, 2009 [41] | 2007 | 3.4% (2.0-5.9%) | ||||
Wang DY, 2010 [120] | 2008 | 19.2% (16.4-22.3%) | ||||
Yao W, 2008 [44] | 2008 | 1.9% (1.1-3.2%) | ||||
LTAs
|
Chongqing
| 2 | 5.3% (1.9-13.9%) | 2.5% (1.4-4.4%) | ||
Zhou X, 2009 [60] | 2007 | 8.7% (6.6-11.2%) | ||||
Wu GH, 2010 [59] | 2008 | 3.1% (2.1-4.5%) | ||||
Fujian
| 1 | 1.0% (0.1-6.8%) | ||||
Wu LH, 2007 [61] | 2006 | 1.0% (0.1-6.8%) | ||||
Gansu
| 1 | 0.8% (0.2-3.2%) | ||||
Gao LF, 2010 [63] | 2009 | 0.8% (0.2-3.2%) | ||||
Guangdong
| 2 | 1.9% (0.9-3.8%) | ||||
Li YF, 2009 [72] | 2008 | 2.5% (1.0-5.9%) | ||||
Xia L, 2010 [77] | 2009 | 1.2% (0.4-3.7%) | ||||
Henan
| 1 | 0.5% (0.1-3.2%) | ||||
Wu SX, 2009 [78] | 2008 | 0.5% (0.1-3.2%) | ||||
Hunan
| 1 | 6.8% (4.8-9.4%) | ||||
Chen LF, 2009 [83] | 2009 | 6.8% (4.8-9.4%) | ||||
Jiangsu
| 1 | 1.0% (0.2-3.7%) | ||||
Wang YP, 2009 [87] | 2007 | 1.0% (0.2-3.7%) |
Stratified meta-analyses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study Characteristic | HIV prevalence | HCV prevalence | HIV-HCV co-infection prevalence | |||
Pooled estimate | Meta-regression | Pooled estimate | Meta-regression | Pooled estimate | Meta-regression | |
% (95% CI), n | (β , p-value) | % (95% CI), n | (β , p-value) | % (95% CI), n | (β , p-value) | |
Language of article: | ||||||
Chinese
| 6.0 (4.7-7.6), n = 70 | 0.060 | 60.1 (52.6-67.2), n = 69 | 0.018 | 4.2 (2.5-6.8), n = 18 | 0.402 |
English
| 8.4 (2.7-23.0), n = 2 |
p = 0.956 | 57.9 (35.9-77.1), n = 2 |
p = 0.964 | 13.5 (10.9-16.6), n = 1 |
p = 0.823 |
Sample size: | ||||||
<500
| 4.8 (3.4-6.7), n = 50 | 0.178 | 59.8 (54.6-64.9), n = 53 | -0.189 | 2.2 (1.2-4.1), n = 11 |
1.367
|
≥500
| 8.2 (5.6-11.8), n = 22 |
p = 0.561 | 60.3 (42.3-75.8), n = 18 |
p = 0.191 | 9.8 (5.7-16.2), n = 8 |
p = 0.029
|
Study locations*: | ||||||
HTA
| 17.5 (14.0-21.6), n = 27 |
-1.811
| 70.2 (62.6-76.8), n = 21 |
-0.335
| 8.0 (4.8-12.9), n = 10 | -0.831 |
LTA
| 2.4 (1.6-3.5), n = 45 |
p < 0.001
| 55.5 (46.4-64.2), n = 50 |
p = 0.017
| 2.5 (1.4-4.4), n = 9 |
p = 0.139 |
Sampling method: | ||||||
Cross-sectional
| 5.7 (4.3-7.4), n = 580 | 0.148 | 62.4 (54.2-69.9), n = 60 | -0.275 | 4.6 (2.9-7.2), n = 19 | - |
Others
| 8.3 (5.1-13.2), n = 14 |
p = 0.686 | 46.2 (36.3-56.5), n = 11 |
p = 0.112 | - | - |
Time period: | ||||||
2004–2006
| 8.0 (5.2-12.2), n = 16 | -0.268 | 56.7 (47.0-65.8), n = 13 | 0.026 | 4.5 (0.3-40.4), n = 2 | 0.353 |
2007–2010
| 5.5 (4.1-7.3), n = 56 |
p = 0.458 | 60.9 (52.1-69.0), n = 58 |
p = 0.879 | 4.4 (2.7-7.2), n = 17 |
p = 0.803 |