MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154092642 · doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01258-1

Guidelines are needed for studies of pre-treatment HIV drug resistance: a methodological study

2021· review· en· W3154092642 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Clémence Ongolo-Zogo, Olivia Mendoza, Babalwa Zani, Frederick Morfaw, Agatha Nyambi, Annie Wang, Michel Kiflen, Hussein El-Kechen, Alvin Leenus, Mark Youssef, Nadia Rehman, Lucas E. Hermans, Virginia Macdonald, Silvia Bertagnolio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityOntario HIV Treatment NetworkHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpact
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryMedicineQuartileFamily medicineTransgenderMEDLINEDemographyPsychologyInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been accompanied by an increase in pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR). While it is critical to monitor the increasing prevalence of PDR across countries and populations to inform optimal regimen selection, the completeness of reporting is often suboptimal, limiting the interpretation and generalizability of the results. Indeed, there is no formal guidance on how studies investigating the prevalence of drug resistance should be reported. Thus, we sought to determine the completeness of reporting in studies of PDR and the factors associated with sub-optimal reporting to ascertain the need for guidelines. METHODS: As part of a systematic review on the global prevalence of PDR in key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, people who inject drugs and people in prisons), we searched 10 electronic databases until January 2019. We extracted information on selected study characteristics useful for interpreting prevalence data. Data were extracted in duplicate. Analyses of variance and correlation were used to explore factors that may explain the number of items reported. RESULTS: We found 650 studies of which 387 were screened as full text and 234 were deemed eligible. The included studies were published between 1997 and 2019 and included a median of 239 (quartile 1 = 101; quartile 3 = 778) participants. Most studies originated from high-income countries (125/234; 53.0%). Of 23 relevant data items, including study design, setting, participant sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk factors, type of resistance test conducted, definition of resistance, the mean (standard deviation) number of items reported was 13 (2.2). We found that more items were reported in studies published more recently (r = 0.20; p < 0.002) and in studies at low risk of bias (F [2231] = 8.142; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete reporting in studies on PDR makes characterising levels of PDR in subpopulations across countries challenging. Hence, guidelines are needed to define a minimum set of variables to be included in such studies.

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)0.746
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.871
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7460.871
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.025
Bibliometrics0.0270.035
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0230.035
Open science0.0120.010
Research integrity0.0160.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.913
GPT teacher head0.734
Teacher spread0.179 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207