Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28038949›Full record

ArticleContraception2017

Could misreporting of condom use explain the observed association between injectable hormonal contraceptives and HIV acquisition risk?

Jennifer A Smith, Renee Heffron, Ailsa R Butler, Connie Celum, Jared M Baeten, Timothy B Hallett

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Contraceptive effects on the cervicovaginal microbiome: Recent evidence including randomized trials.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer A SmithDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Renee HeffronDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. Electronic address: rheffron@uw.edu.
Ailsa R ButlerDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Connie CelumDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Jared M BaetenDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Timothy B HallettDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Hormonal contraception, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and HIV-1 protectionR21HD074439 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BAETEN, JARED · 2013 to 2014
$432k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD074439Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSome observational studies have suggested an association between the use of hormonal contraceptives (HC) and HIV acquisition. One major concern is that differential misreporting of sexual behavior between HC users and nonusers may generate artificially inflated risk estimates. STUDY

designWe developed an individual-based model that simulates the South African HIV serodiscordant couples analyzed for HC-HIV risk by Heffron et al. (2012). We varied the pattern of misreporting condom use between HC users and nonusers and reproduced the trial data under the assumption that HC use is not associated with HIV risk. The simulated data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for the reported level of condom use.

resultsIf HC users overreport condom use more than nonusers, an apparent excess risk could be observed even without any biological effect of HC on HIV acquisition. With 45% overreporting by HC users (i.e., 9 out of every 20 sex acts reported with condoms are actually unprotected) and accurate condom reporting by nonusers, a true null effect can be inflated to give an observed hazard ratio (HR̂) of 2.0. In a different population with lower overall reported condom use, artificially high HR̂s can only be generated if non-HC users underreport condom use.

conclusionDifferential condom misreporting can theoretically produce inflated HR̂ values for an association between HC and HIV even without a true association. However, to produce a doubling of HIV risk that is entirely spurious requires substantially different levels of misreporting among HC users and nonusers, which may be unrealistic. IMPLICATIONS: Considerably differential amounts of condom use misreporting by HC users and nonusers would be needed to produce entirely spurious observed levels of excess HIV acquisition risk among HC users when there is actually no true association.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCoitusCondomsContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptives, Oral, HormonalFemaleHIV InfectionsHIV SerosortingHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentContraceptives, Oral, HormonalCondom useDMPAHIVInjectable hormonal contraceptivesMathematical modellingMisreporting bias

Identifiers

PMID28038949
PMCPMC5387890
OpenAlexW2562973084

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.