ArticleBMJ open2024
Developing a reporting item checklist for studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence or incidence: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate surveillance of HIV drug resistance prevalence is challenged by heterogenous and inadequate data reporting. To address this issue, we recently published reporting guidance documentation for studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence and incidence.
objectivesIn this study, we describe the methods used to develop this reporting guidance.
designWe used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design involving authors and users of studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence. In the quantitative phase, we conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey (n=51). Survey participants rated various reporting items on whether they are essential to report. Validity ratios were computed to determine the items to discuss in the qualitative phase. In the qualitative phase, two focus group discussions (n=9 in total) discussed this draft item checklist, providing a justification and examples for each item. We conducted a descriptive qualitative analysis of the group discussions to identify emergent themes regarding the qualities of an essential reporting item.
resultsWe identified 38 potential reporting items that better characterise the study participants, improve the interpretability of study results and clarify the methods used for HIV resistance testing. These items were synthesised to create the reporting item checklist. Qualitative insights formed the basis of the explanation, elaboration, and rationale components of the guidance document.
conclusionsWe generated a list of reporting items for studies on the incidence or prevalence of HIV drug resistance along with an explanation of why researchers believe these items are important. Mixed methods allowed for the simultaneous generation and integration of the item list and qualitative insights. The integrated findings were then further developed to become the subsequently published reporting guidance.
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.