ArticleAIDS (London, England)2025
A lesson in embracing uncertainty in early safety signals from the Tsepamo study.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveWe investigated how randomness may have contributed to the apparent decline in observed risk of neural tube defects (NTDs) following in-utero dolutegravir (DTG) exposure. We aimed to describe statistical approaches to uncertainty using accessible language for nonstatistical audiences.
methodsWe reanalyzed Tsepamo Study data using frequentist confidence intervals, repeated intervals accounting for group sequential monitoring, and Bayesian posterior and posterior predictive distributions. We estimated the probability of decision reversal using simulation.
resultsThe initial Tsepamo analysis reported a large difference in NTD risk between DTG and non-DTG exposures, with point estimates of 0.94 and 0.12%, respectively. This difference diminished with subsequent data, with updated estimates of 0.10% for DTG and 0.11% for non-DTG exposures. Our analyses showed the early finding was statistically compatible with a wide range of effect sizes, including no difference. Due to the large uncertainty in the first analysis, the probability of decision reversal was high under repeated testing frameworks.
conclusionEarly safety signals may reflect statistical noise. Evaluating the range of confidence intervals and estimating decision reversal probabilities provide meaningful insight into early results. Formal frameworks for uncertainty should guide decisions about interim data reporting, especially when findings may influence clinical or regulatory action.
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.