Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23406964›Full record

ReviewJournal of the International AIDS Society2013

Measuring and modelling concurrency.

Larry Sawers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Sexual Concurrency Among Adolescent Women With Multiple Partners: A Daily Diary Study.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Conflicting Views in Narratives on HIV Transmission via Medical Care.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care
    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

1 author.

Larry SawersDepartment of Economics, American University, Washington, DC, USA. lsawers@american.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores three critical topics discussed in the recent debate over concurrency (overlapping sexual partnerships): measurement of the prevalence of concurrency, mathematical modelling of concurrency and HIV epidemic dynamics, and measuring the correlation between HIV and concurrency. The focus of the article is the concurrency hypothesis - the proposition that presumed high prevalence of concurrency explains sub-Saharan Africa's exceptionally high HIV prevalence. Recent surveys using improved questionnaire design show reported concurrency ranging from 0.8% to 7.6% in the region. Even after adjusting for plausible levels of reporting errors, appropriately parameterized sexual network models of HIV epidemics do not generate sustainable epidemic trajectories (avoid epidemic extinction) at levels of concurrency found in recent surveys in sub-Saharan Africa. Efforts to support the concurrency hypothesis with a statistical correlation between HIV incidence and concurrency prevalence are not yet successful. Two decades of efforts to find evidence in support of the concurrency hypothesis have failed to build a convincing case.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalSexual BehaviorconcurrencyHIVmultiple concurrent partnerssexual network modelssub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID23406964
PMCPMC3572217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.