c Borderline significant difference between non-treated and treated intervention group (P = 0.057).
The incidence of delirium, unplanned removal of tubes and re-admission rate was significantly higher and the number of delirium free days was significantly lower in the non-treated group compared with the treated intervention group.
In addition, the delirium incidence in the non-treated intervention group was also significantly higher compared with the treated intervention group (Table 4).
In the wake of Bosnia, overzealous policymakers and development consultants have treated intervention as a formulaic science.
MAIN MEASURES: Articles were classified as either (1) physician "active -a physiciactive -aiphysiciandesigning or imparticipatedhe intervention; (2) physician "passive"-physicians treating intervention group patients receivedesigning adherence informatimplementingysicians theatintervention did not; or (3) physicians noninvolved.
This shows that there are still challenges to overcome in order to successfully implement a screen-and-treat intervention approach in low-resource settings.
b Statistically significantly different (P <0.05) compared with treated intervention group.
This will be used to extract relevant data on methodological issues, eligibility criteria, interventions (including the number of participants treated, intervention provider) and study design, study duration, follow-up, comparisons, outcome measures, results, withdrawals and adverse events.
Although this group showed similar patient characteristics as the historical control group and the prophylactic treated intervention group, the outcome measures in this group were comparable with the historical control group.
Large-scale community randomised trials are currently evaluating the effectiveness of universal test-and-treat interventions, where ART initiation is initiated immediately after HIV testing, regardless of immunological or clinical criteria.
