ArticleResearch square2023
Synthesis of protective oral PrEP adherence levels in cisgender women using convergent clinical- and bottom-up modeling.
Article in Research square, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Globally, most HIV infections occur in heterosexual women in resource-limited settings. In these settings, female self-protection with generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate pre-exposure prophylaxis (FTC/TDF-PrEP) may constitute a major pillar of the HIV prevention portfolio. However, clinical trials in women had inconsistent outcomes, sparking uncertainty regarding risk-group specific adherence requirements and causing reluctance in testing and recommending on-demand regimen in women. We analyzed all FTC/TDF-PrEP trials to establish PrEP efficacy ranges in women. In a 'bottom-up' approach, we modeled hypotheses corroborating risk-group specific adherence-efficacy profiles. Finally, we used the clinical efficacy ranges to (in-)validate hypotheses. We found that different clinical outcomes could solely be explained by the proportion of enrolled participants not taking the product, allowing, for the first time, to unify clinical observations. This analysis showed that 90% protection was achieved, when women took
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.