A Systematic Review of the Quality of Trials Evaluating Biomedical HIV Prevention Interventions Shows That Many Lack Power
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have tested strategies to prevent sexual acquisition of HIV infection, but their quality has been variable. We aimed to identify, describe, and evaluate the quality of RCTs studying biomedical interventions to prevent HIV acquisition by sexual transmission. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review to identify all RCTs evaluating the efficacy of biomedical HIV prevention interventions. We assessed seven generic and content-specific quality components important in HIV prevention trials, factors influencing study power, co-interventions provided, and trial ethics. RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible RCTs. The median number of quality components judged to be in adequate or unclear was 3 (range 1-4) in 1992-1998, 3 (range 1-4) in 1999-2003, and 0 (range0-2) in 2004-2008 (p < .001). Common problems that may have biased results included low retention (median 84%), poor adherence to interventions requiring on going use (median < or =78%), and lower HIV incidence than expected a priori (in 8 of 11 trials where evaluable). CONCLUSION: Reporting of trials of biomedical HIV prevention interventions has improved over time. However, quality improvement is needed in several key areas that influence study power, including participant retention, adherence to interventions, and estimation of expected HIV incidence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.683 | 0.940 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it