ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2018
Impact of Changes Over Time in the Stanford University Genotypic Resistance Interpretation Algorithm.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Stanford HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation algorithm has changed substantially over its lifetime. In many studies, the algorithm version used is not specified. It is easy to assume that results across versions are comparable, but the effects of version changes on resistance calls are unknown. We evaluate these effects for 20 antiretroviral drugs.
methodsWe calculated resistance interpretations for the same 5993 HIV-1 sequences, from participants in AIDS Clinical Trials Group studies, under 14 versions of the Stanford algorithm from 2002 to 2017. Trends over time were assessed using repeated-measures logistic regression. Changes in rule structure and scoring were examined.
resultsFor most drugs, the proportion of high-level resistance calls on the same sequences was greater using more recent algorithm versions; 16/20 drugs showed significant upward trends. Some drugs, especially tenofovir, had a substantial increase. Only darunavir had a decrease. Algorithm changes impacted calls for subtype C more than B. For intermediate and high-level resistance combined, effects were weaker and more varied. Over time, rules in the Stanford algorithm have become more complex and contain more subrules. The types of rule changes responsible for trends varied widely by drug. DISCUSSION: Reporting the Stanford algorithm version used for resistance analysis is strongly recommended. Caution should be used when comparing results between studies, unless the same version of the algorithm was used. Comparisons using different Stanford versions may be valid for drugs with few changes over time, but for most comparisons, version matters, and for some drugs, the impact is large.
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.