SynthesisHIV clinical trials
A systematic review of the quality of trials evaluating biomedical HIV prevention interventions shows that many lack power.
Synthesis in HIV clinical trials. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting product adherence in a topical microbicide safety trial in Pune, India.AIDS and behavior · 2012Trial
- Data and methods to characterize the role of sex work and to inform sex work programs in generalized HIV epidemics: evidence to challenge assumptions.Annals of epidemiology · 2016Review
- Implementation of an electronic fingerprint-linked data collection system: a feasibility and acceptability study among Zambian female sex workers.Globalization and health · 2015Article
- Changes in the contribution of genital tract infections to HIV acquisition among Kenyan high-risk women from 1993 to 2012.AIDS (London, England) · 2015Article
- CIHR canadian HIV trials network HIV workshop: ethical research through community participation and strengthening scientific validity.The Pan African medical journal · 2014Article
- Cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in HIV prevention research.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2013Article
- Apparent declining efficacy in randomized trials: examples of the Thai RV144 HIV vaccine and South African CAPRISA 004 microbicide trials.AIDS (London, England) · 2012Article
- Factors associated with study attrition among HIV-infected risky drinkers in St. Petersburg, Russia.HIV clinical trialsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSeveral randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have tested strategies to prevent sexual acquisition of HIV infection, but their quality has been variable. We aimed to identify, describe, and evaluate the quality of RCTs studying biomedical interventions to prevent HIV acquisition by sexual transmission.
methodWe conducted a systematic review to identify all RCTs evaluating the efficacy of biomedical HIV prevention interventions. We assessed seven generic and content-specific quality components important in HIV prevention trials, factors influencing study power, co-interventions provided, and trial ethics.
resultsWe identified 26 eligible RCTs. The median number of quality components judged to be in adequate or unclear was 3 (range 1-4) in 1992-1998, 3 (range 1-4) in 1999-2003, and 0 (range0-2) in 2004-2008 (p < .001). Common problems that may have biased results included low retention (median 84%), poor adherence to interventions requiring on going use (median < or =78%), and lower HIV incidence than expected a priori (in 8 of 11 trials where evaluable).
conclusionReporting of trials of biomedical HIV prevention interventions has improved over time. However, quality improvement is needed in several key areas that influence study power, including participant retention, adherence to interventions, and estimation of expected HIV incidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.