Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26830283›Full record

ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2016

Modeling and Cost-Effectiveness in HIV Prevention.

Margo M Jacobsen, Rochelle P Walensky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MTrials · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. How decision makers can use quantitative approaches to guide outbreak responses.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Top Questions in ID: Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV.Open forum infectious diseases · 2017
    Article
  19. 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.

Margo M JacobsenMedical Practice Evaluation Center (RPW, MMJ), Divisions of Infectious Diseases and General Internal Medicine (RPW), Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Rochelle P WalenskyMedical Practice Evaluation Center (RPW, MMJ), Divisions of Infectious Diseases and General Internal Medicine (RPW), Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. rwalensky@partners.org.

Funding

Development and application of a new simulation model for COVID-19R01AI042006 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Kenneth Alan Freedberg, Anne Neilan · 1998 to 2026
$12.9M
Novel Methods to Inform HIV/TB Clinical Trial DevelopmentR01AI093269 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI REDDY, KRISHNA P · 2011 to 2024
$6.8M
Novel Methods to Inform HIV/TB Clinical Trial DevelopmentR37AI093269 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI WALENSKY, ROCHELLE P. · 2015 to 2019
$3.8M
Novel approaches to the design and evaluation of combination HIV preventionR01MH105203 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI PALTIEL, A. DAVID · 2014 to 2018
$3.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI042006NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI093269NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH105203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With HIV funding plateauing and the number of people living with HIV increasing due to the rollout of life-saving antiretroviral therapy, policy makers are faced with increasingly tighter budgets to manage the ongoing HIV epidemic. Cost-effectiveness and modeling analyses can help determine which HIV interventions may be of best value. Incidence remains remarkably high in certain populations and countries, making prevention key to controlling the spread of HIV. This paper briefly reviews concepts in modeling and cost-effectiveness methodology and then examines results of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses on the following HIV prevention strategies: condoms and circumcision, behavioral- or community-based interventions, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and treatment as prevention. We find that the majority of published studies demonstrate cost-effectiveness; however, not all interventions are affordable. We urge continued research on combination strategies and methodologies that take into account willingness to pay and budgetary impact.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsCircumcision, MaleCondomsCost-Benefit AnalysisHIV InfectionsHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMaleMass ScreeningModels, TheoreticalPre-Exposure ProphylaxisAnti-HIV AgentsCost-effectivenessHIVModelingPreventionReviewScience of prevention

Identifiers

PMID26830283
PMCPMC4779384

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.