Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22355798›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2012

Microbicides: topical prevention against HIV.

Robin J Shattock, Zeda Rosenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Unexpected synergistic HIV neutralization by a triple microbicide produced in rice endosperm.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robin J ShattockCentre for Infection and Immunity, Division of Clinical Sciences, St. George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, United Kingdom. shattock@sgul.ac.uk
Zeda Rosenberg

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbicides represent a potential intervention strategy for preventing HIV transmission. Vaginal microbicides would meet the need for a discreet method that women could use to protect themselves against HIV. Although early-generation microbicides failed to demonstrate efficacy, newer candidates are based on more potent antiretroviral (ARV) products. Positive data from the CAPRISA 004 trial of tenofovir gel support use in women and represent a turning point for the field. This article reviews current progress in development of ARV-based microbicides. We discuss the consensus on selection criteria, the potential for drug resistance, rationale for drug combinations, and the use of pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) assessment in product development. The urgent need for continued progress in development of formulations for sustained delivery is emphasized. Finally, as the boundaries between different prevention technologies become increasingly blurred, consideration is given to the potential synergy of diverse approaches across the prevention landscape.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravaginalAnti-HIV AgentsCD4 AntigensDown-RegulationDrug DesignDrug Resistance, ViralDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansReceptors, CXCRReverse Transcriptase InhibitorsTechnology, PharmaceuticalVirus IntegrationAnti-HIV AgentsCD4 AntigensReceptors, CXCRReverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID22355798
PMCPMC3281595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.