ReviewOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Missed Opportunities: A Narrative Review on Why Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Is Underutilized.
Review in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Not Seeking Post-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Among PrEP-Naive Men Who Have Sex with Men: An Analysis from the French ANRS-PREVENIR Study.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- The 2025 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Nonoccupational HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Guidelines: Updated Regimens and Remaining Questions.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Postexposure prophylaxis for HIV among healthcare workers in Türkiye: a descriptive, multicenter retrospective study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Implementing the new WHO guidelines on HIV post-exposure prophylaxis: perspectives from five African countries.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Physician Attitudes Towards Pharmacist-Prescribed HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP): A Survey of a State Medical Association.Journal of community health · 2025Article
- Prevalence, correlates and solutions to people with HIV in China being refused treatment for diseases not related to HIV: a mixed-methods study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Qualitative and quantitative research on preferences and perceptions regarding HIV post-exposure prophylaxis among young women, men, female sex workers, members of the LGBTQ + community and people who inject drugs in Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- Updated guidelines on HIV post-exposure prophylaxis: continued efforts towards increased accessibility.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
- The Role of Emergency and Primary Care in Combating the Rise of Gonorrhea: Another Purview Paradox?Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and PEP-in-pocket (PIP) for women: A rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis.Women's health (London, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is an important tool for preventing HIV infection but remains underutilized. In this narrative review, we aim to summarize the frequency of missed opportunities for prescribing PEP among studies from around the world, discuss the complexities of the challenges facing PEP provision, and describe possible solutions. We identified 20 studies published in the last 10 years among 43 832 individuals, of whom an estimated 41 477 were eligible for PEP. Of those eligible for PEP, PEP was prescribed among 27 705 (66.8%). There was a significant difference in PEP prescriptions in acute compared with non-acute care settings (63.5% vs 94.5%;
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.