Understanding the role of men in women's use of the vaginal ring and oral PrEP during pregnancy and breastfeeding: multi-stakeholder perspectives.

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. HIV Prevention Product Acceptability and Preference Among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa to Inform Novel Biomedical Options in Development: A Systematic Review.AIDS and behavior · 2025
   Pooled it
2. Barriers and facilitators to uptake and use of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in pregnant and postpartum women: a qualitative meta-synthesis.BMC public health · 2024
   Pooled it
3. "We chose PrEP because I wanted to be sure that this child my wife was going to conceive was indeed mine." Factors influencing the choice of safer conception methods and experiences with its use: a qualitative study among HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe.BMC public health · 2024
   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

11 authors.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as