MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337660200 · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv096.257

Risk of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV among Women on Triple Antiretroviral Drugs in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic Review of Observational Studies and Explorative Meta-Analysis.

2015· article· en· W2337660200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alliance Nikuze, Anna Mia Ekström, Joel Monárrez‐Espino

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMeta-analysisMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Transmission (telecommunications)Antiretroviral treatmentEnvironmental healthAntiretroviral therapyVirologyViral loadInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Monitoring the elimination of mother-to-child HIV transmission (MTCT) requires measuring the transmission rate; however, in the era of triple antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for prevention of MTCT, evaluators use different methodological approaches to measure it. This work revised programme evaluation studies between 2000–13 to determine the effect of triple ARVs on MTCT rate in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) METHODS: A systematic review and explorative meta-analysis was undertaken. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched using relevant terms. Inclusion criteria were as followed: population, HIV-exposed infants and their mothers; intervention, triple ARVs treatment/prophylaxis; outcome, MTCT rate (proportion); and study design, observational studies. The New-Castle Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality. Random-effect modelling was used to combine individual MTCT rates. Forest plots were used to summarize the results, and funnel plot was used to assess publication bias RESULTS: Thirty studies were reviewed. Most were facility-based or child-testing data of intermediate quality. They were relatively similar in terms of exposure, but the outcome, sample size (10–5141), and type/number of covariates reported varied considerably. Competing risk such as weaning and bias due to loss to follow-up were not usually considered in individual studies, leading to an incorrect estimation of transmission rate. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis leading to a pooled estimate of 4% (95% CI 1.6-7.3) with large variations in individual MTCT rates (0.9-11.9%); heterogeneity was high (Q-statistic P < 0.000; I 2 -index 95% CI 92.9–96.5), and the funnel plot was asymmetric. Subgroup analyses by infants' age at testing showed no differences, but the prophylaxis group had a slightly lower pooled estimate than the treatment group (3.7 vs 4.9%)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EpidemiologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207