Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23872613›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2013

New clinical trial designs for HIV vaccine evaluation.

Zoe Moodie, Holly Janes, Yunda Huang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Zoe MoodieVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. zmoodie@fhcrc.org
Holly Janes
Yunda Huang

Funding

SDMC: HIV Vaccine Trials NetworkUM1AI068635 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Peter B. Gilbert, Yunda Huang · 2011 to 2026
$385.9M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068635NIAID NIH HHS UM1AI068635
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWith multiple HIV vaccine candidates suitable for efficacy evaluation in a rapidly changing HIV prevention landscape, innovative HIV vaccine trial design research is much needed to optimally utilize resources by building on lessons learned from past HIV vaccine efficacy trials. RECENT

findingsSeveral recent articles propose new vaccine efficacy trial design strategies tailored to the emerging needs in HIV vaccine evaluation. These include a focus on efficacy evaluation proximal to the vaccination series; more intensive interim monitoring for potential harm, nonefficacy and high efficacy of the vaccine; simultaneous evaluation of multiple vaccine regimens with a shared placebo group; designs that include pilot immunogenicity studies of putative immune correlates to expedite their evaluation; as well as designs tailored to evaluate vaccine efficacy in the context of partially effective nonvaccine prevention modalities. SUMMARY: A more rapid evaluation of multiple vaccine candidates is possible. Weaker vaccines can be weeded out quickly. Pilot studies can be done during the trial to prepare for a timely immune correlates assessment. Evidence that emerges regarding the efficacy of nonvaccine prevention modalities will have important implications for future trial designs.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicAIDS VaccinesHIV InfectionsHumansResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAIDS Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23872613
PMCPMC3872029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.