ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012
Using two on-going HIV studies to obtain clinical data from before, during and after pregnancy for HIV-positive women.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in characteristics and HIV-clinical outcomes of pregnant people living with HIV in the UK.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- The risk of viral rebound in the year after delivery in women remaining on antiretroviral therapy.AIDS (London, England) · 2015Observational
- Pregnancy is associated with elevation of liver enzymes in HIV-positive women on antiretroviral therapy.AIDS (London, England) · 2015Observational
- Response to antiretroviral therapy (ART): comparing women with previous use of zidovudine monotherapy (ZDVm) in pregnancy with ART naïve women.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (UK CHIC) is an observational study that collates data on HIV-positive adults accessing HIV clinical care at (currently) 13 large clinics in the UK but does not collect pregnancy specific data. The National Study of HIV in Pregnancy and Childhood (NSHPC) collates data on HIV-positive women receiving antenatal care from every maternity unit in the UK and Ireland. Both studies collate pseudonymised data and neither dataset contains unique patient identifiers. A methodology was developed to find and match records for women reported to both studies thereby obtaining clinical and treatment data on pregnant HIV-positive women not available from either dataset alone.
resultsWomen in UK CHIC receiving HIV-clinical care in 1996-2009, were found in the NSHPC dataset by initially 'linking' records with identical date-of-birth, linked records were then accepted as a genuine 'match', if they had further matching fields including CD4 test date. In total, 2063 women were found in both datasets, representing 23.1% of HIV-positive women with a pregnancy in the UK (n = 8932). Clinical data was available in UK CHIC following most pregnancies (92.0%, 2471/2685 pregnancies starting before 2009). There was bias towards matching women with repeat pregnancies (35.9% (741/2063) of women found in both datasets had a repeat pregnancy compared to 21.9% (1502/6869) of women in NSHPC only) and matching women HIV diagnosed before their first reported pregnancy (54.8% (1131/2063) compared to 47.7% (3278/6869), respectively).
conclusionsThrough the use of demographic data and clinical dates, records from two independent studies were successfully matched, providing data not available from either study alone.
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.