Hormonal contraceptive use in HIV-infected women using antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While extensive research has explored pharmacokinetic interactions between antiretroviral therapy and hormonal contraception, few studies have examined whether these interactions affect clinical outcomes. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature that describes hormonal contraceptive among HIV infected women who also antiretroviral therapy, focusing on papers that address clinically important outcomes such as pregnancy or ovulation. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted of PUBMED and OVID to identify all articles that addressed hormonal contraception co-administered with antiretroviral therapy published in English between 01 January 1990 and 30 October 2014. In addition, manual reference checks of all articles of interest were conducted to identify articles not captured in the electronic search. Our search criteria identified 405 records. The title and abstract of data reports retrieved via the search were reviewed to identify potential articles of interest. Those with any indication of the main outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion (N=162). Abstracts were then reviewed to identify those manuscripts that would merit a review of the full text version (N=64). Eight articles that addressed the outcomes of interest were identified. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of these articles. RESULTS: The studies reviewed were limited in a number of ways that precluded their providing a rigorous assessment of the efficacy of contraception when co-administered with antiretroviral therapy. DISCUSSION: None of the studies were of adequate quality to provide the guidance that providers and HIV infected women need when considering contraceptive options. High quality, well-powered studies are required to address the efficacy of hormonal contraception when co-administered with antiretroviral therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".