Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24384502›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2014

Molecular tools for studying HIV transmission in sexual networks.

Mary K Grabowski, Andrew D Redd

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  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. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Mary K GrabowskiaBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University bLaboratory of Immunoregulation, NIAID, NIH, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Andrew D Redd

Funding

International Studies of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)ZIAAI000361 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI REDD, ANDREW · 2009 to 2025
$15.8M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AI999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPhylogenetics is frequently used for studies of population-based HIV transmission. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current utilities and limitations of phylogenetics in HIV epidemiological research from sample collection through to data analysis. RECENT

findingsStudies of HIV phylogenies can provide critical information about HIV epidemics that are otherwise difficult to obtain through traditional study design such as transmission of drug-resistant virus, mixing between demographic groups, and rapidity of viral spread within populations. However, recent results from empirical and theoretical studies of HIV phylogenies challenge some of the key assumptions and interpretations from phylogenetic studies. Recent findings include lack of transmission bottlenecks in MSM and injection drug use epidemics, evidence for preferential transmission of HIV virus in heterosexual epidemics, and limited evidence that tree topologies correlate directly with underlying network structures. Other challenges include a lack of a standardized definition for a phylogenetic transmission cluster and biased or sparse sampling of HIV transmission networks. SUMMARY: Phylogenetics is an important tool for HIV research, and offers opportunities to understand critical aspects of the HIV epidemic. Like all epidemiological research, the methods used and interpretation of results from phylogenetic studies should be made cautiously with careful consideration.

Indexed as

HIV-1Sexual BehaviorHIV InfectionsHumansMolecular EpidemiologyPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID24384502
PMCPMC4109889

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.