Comparison of the prevalence rates of HIV infection between men who have sex with men (MSM) and men in the general population in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the 2015 report of the Joint United Nations Program on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the prevalence rates of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) varied from 6 to 37% depending on the country, far exceeding the national prevalence rates. The present study on HIV infection among men who have sex with men in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted to describe the different sampling methods used to identify this target population and compare the prevalence rates of HIV infection among MSM to that of men in the general population. METHODS: The selection of studies to be included was carried out in the principal electronic databases. The 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) directives were used throughout the entire process. Bias evaluation was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. For each country, HIV prevalence values in both groups were calculated. A prevalence ratio was also calculated to compare the prevalence rates of the two groups. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were selected. Most of the studies (82.35%) used the Respondent-Driven Sampling method. The average prevalence rate was 17.81% (range: 3.7-33.46) for MSM and 6.15% (range: 0.5-19.7) for men in the general population. Overall, the human HIV prevalence rate was 4.94 times higher among MSM than among men in the general population (95%CI: 2.91-8.37). The western and central regions of Africa, as well as low-prevalence countries (prevalence < 1%), had very high prevalence ratios: 14.47 (95% CI: 9.90-21.13) and 28.49 (95% CI: 11.47-72.71), respectively. CONCLUSION: MSM are at higher risk of HIV infection than men in the general population. The prevalence ratios are particularly elevated in West and Central Africa as well as in low-prevalence countries. Close monitoring of the situation, research and preventive measures are essential to control the epidemic amongst MSM.
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 | 0.023 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".