ReviewContraception2011
Apples and oranges? Interpreting success in HIV prevention trials.
Review in Contraception, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Joint modeling of time-varying HIV exposure and infection for estimation of per-act efficacy in HIV prevention trials.Statistical communications in infectious diseases · 2020Article
- The Pre-clinical Toolbox of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics:Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Prolonged expression of an anti-HIV-1 gp120 minibody to the female rhesus macaque lower genital tract by AAV gene transfer.Gene therapy · 2014Article
- Cost-effectiveness of tenofovir gel in urban South Africa: model projections of HIV impact and threshold product prices.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Social justice and HIV vaccine research in the age of pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention.Current HIV research · 2013Article
- Combination prevention: new hope for stopping the epidemic.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2013Review
- Safe and sustained vaginal delivery of pyrimidinedione HIV-1 inhibitors from polyurethane intravaginal rings.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
- Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines.Globalization and health · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decade, several large-scale, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of novel HIV prevention products have been completed, and eight are currently underway or about to be reported. Little attention has been given in the literature to the level of protection sufficient to warrant introduction, and there is concern that using the term "efficacy" to describe the effect of user-controlled methods such as microbicides may mislead policymakers.
designWe review how the fields of family planning, vaccine science and mathematical modelling understand and use the terms efficacy and effectiveness, and explore with simple mathematical models how trial results of user-controlled products relate to common understandings of these terms.
resultsEach field brings different assumptions, a different evidence base and different expectations to interpretations of efficacy and effectiveness - a reality that could cloud informed assessment of emerging data.
conclusionWhen making judgments on the utility of new health technologies, it is important to use standards that yield appropriate comparisons for the innovation and that take into account the local epidemic and available alternatives.
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.