Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24088395›Full record

ReviewJournal of the International AIDS Society2013

Caring for women living with HIV: gaps in the evidence.

Mona R Loutfy, Lorraine Sherr, Ulrike Sonnenberg-Schwan, Sharon L Walmsley, Margaret Johnson, Antonella d'Arminio Monforte, Women for Positive Action

Open access · goldAbstract 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 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mona R LoutfyWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; mona.loutfy@wchospital.ca.
Lorraine Sherr
Ulrike Sonnenberg-Schwan
Sharon L Walmsley
Margaret Johnson
Antonella d'Arminio Monforte
Women for Positive Action
University College London · GBOspedale San Paolo · ITToronto General Hospital · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the management of HIV, women and men generally undergo the same treatment pathway, with gender differences being given limited consideration. This is in spite of accumulating evidence that there are a number of potential differences between women and men which may affect response to treatment, pharmacokinetics, toxicities and coping. There are also notable psychological, behavioural, social and structural factors that may have a unique impact on women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite our increasing knowledge of HIV and advances in treatment, there are significant gaps in the data relating specifically to women. One of the factors contributing to this situation is the under-representation of women in all aspects of HIV clinical research. Furthermore, there are clinical issues unique to women, including gynaecologic and breast diseases, menopause-related factors, contraception and other topics related to women's and sexual health.

methodsUsing scoping review methodology, articles from the literature from 1980 to 2012 were identified using appropriate MeSH headings reflecting the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. Titles and abstracts were scanned to determine whether they were relevant to non-reproductive health in WLWH, and papers meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed.

resultsThis review summarizes our current knowledge of the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. It suggests that there are a number of gender differences in disease and treatment outcomes, and distinct women-specific issues, such as menopause and co-morbidities, that pose significant challenges to the care of WLWH.

conclusionsBased on a review of this evidence, outstanding questions and areas where further studies are required to determine gender differences in the efficacy and safety of treatment and other clinical and psychological issues specifically affecting WLWH have been identified. Well-controlled and adequately powered clinical studies are essential to help provide answers to these questions and to contribute to activities aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of WLWH.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityReproductive HealthAnti-Retroviral AgentsFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsAnti-Retroviral AgentsgenderHIVpharmacokineticssafetystigmawomen

Identifiers

PMID24088395
PMCPMC3789211
OpenAlexW2051772638

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.