ArticlePloS one2014
Acceptability and feasibility of repeated mucosal specimen collection in clinical trial participants in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Collection of Human Rectal Secretions Using OriCol Devices Is Suitable for Measurement of Mucosal Ig without Blood Contamination.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2020Trial
- First-in-Human Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of an Intranasally Administered Replication-Competent Sendai Virus-Vectored HIV Type 1 Gag Vaccine: Induction of Potent T-Cell or Antibody Responses in Prime-Boost Regimens.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017Trial
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMucosal specimens are essential to evaluate compartmentalized immune responses to HIV vaccine candidates and other mucosally targeted investigational products. We studied the acceptability and feasibility of repeated mucosal sampling in East African clinical trial participants at low risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. METHODS AND
findingsThe Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative (KAVI) enrolled participants into three Phase 1 trials of preventive HIV candidate vaccines in 2011-2012 at two clinical research centers in Nairobi. After informed consent to a mucosal sub-study, participants were asked to undergo collection of mucosal secretions (saliva, oral fluids, semen, cervico-vaginal and rectal), but could opt out of any collection at any visit. Specimens were collected at baseline and two additional time points. A tolerability questionnaire was administered at the final sub-study visit. Of 105 trial participants, 27 of 34 women (79%) and 62 of 71 men (87%) enrolled in the mucosal sub-study. Nearly all sub-study participants gave saliva and oral fluids at all visits. Semen was collected from about half the participating men (47-48%) at all visits. Cervico-vaginal secretions were collected by Softcup from about two thirds of women (63%) at baseline, increasing to 78% at the following visits, with similar numbers for cervical secretion collection by Merocel sponge; about half of women (52%) gave cervico-vaginal samples at all visits. Rectal secretions were collected with Merocel sponge from about a quarter of both men and women (24%) at all 3 visits, with 16% of men and 19% of women giving rectal samples at all visits.
conclusionsRepeated mucosal sampling in clinical trial participants in Kenya is feasible, with a good proportion of participants consenting to most sampling methods with the exception of rectal samples. Experienced staff members of both sexes and trained counselors with standardized messaging may improve acceptance of rectal sampling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.