Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25090361›Full record

ReviewBehavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.)2014

HIV/AIDS in older women: unique challenges, unmet needs.

Ramani Durvasula

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ramani Durvasulaa California State University Los Angeles.
California State University Los Angeles · US

Funding

Personality disorders, decision making and sexual risk behaviorsSC1MH093181 · NIMH · CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LOS ANGELES · PI DURVASULA, RAMANI S · 2010 to 2013
$1.4M
NIMH NIH HHS 1SC1MH093181-01A1NIMH NIH HHS SC1 MH093181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As persons living with HIV/AIDS live longer, both the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection in older women is expected to increase, and this review presents a model and review of the extant literature on older women with HIV/AIDS in the United States. Older women are rarely addressed in the discourse about HIV risk and prevention, and their concerns are often missed by risk-reduction programs that typically target men and younger adults. Societal biases around aging can compound factors such as stigma and disclosure for older women. Primary care providers are often not recommending routine HIV testing to older women, or addressing the impact of age-related physiological changes on risk and sexual health. Many older women may be starting new relationships, so it is important that providers understand the relational variables specific to this group of women. Empirical research focused on the needs of older women, and recognition of the diverse composition and needs of this group, are needed to inform prevention, intervention, and best practices with this population of women.

Indexed as

AgingHealth Services Needs and DemandWomen's HealthComorbidityHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningMental DisordersPrimary Health CareRisk FactorsRisk Reduction BehaviorSafe SexSpousesHIVolder womenrisksexualitystigma

Identifiers

PMID25090361
PMCPMC4152459
OpenAlexW2026729643

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.