ReviewBMJ open2021
Virological measures and factors associated with outcomes, and missing outcome data in HIV clinical trials: a methodological study.
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the definition of HIV virological outcomes in the literature and factors associated with outcomes and missing outcome data.
methodsWe conducted a methodological review of HIV RCTs using a search (2009-2019) of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.Only full-text, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that measured virological outcomes in people living with HIV, and published in English were included.We extracted study details and outcomes. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with a viral threshold ≤50 copies/mL and linear regression to identify factors associated with missing outcome data.
resultsOur search yielded 5847 articles; 180 were included. A virological outcome was the primary outcome in 73.5% of studies. 89 studies (49.4%) used virological success. The remaining used change in viral load (VL) (33 studies, 18.3%); virological failure (59 studies, 32.8%); or virological rebound (9 studies, 5.0%). 96 studies (53.3%) set the threshold at ≤50 copies/mL; and 33.1% used multiple measures.Compared with government and privately funded studies, RCTs with industry funding (adjusted OR 6.39; 95% CI 2.15 to 19.00; p<0.01) were significantly associated with higher odds of using a VL threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Publication year, intervention type, income level and number of patients were not associated with a threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Trials with pharmacological interventions had less missing data (β=-11.04; 95% CI -20.02 to -1.87; p=0.02). DISCUSSION: Country source of funding was associated with VL threshold choice and studies with pharmacological interventions had less missing data, which may in part explain heterogeneous virological outcomes across studies. Multiple measures of VL were not associated with missing data. The development of formal guidelines on virological outcome reporting in RCTs is needed.
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.