MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209367460 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039462

Virological measures and factors associated with outcomes, and missing outcome data in HIV clinical trials: a methodological study

2021· review· en· W3209367460 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Youssef, Babalwa Zani, Oluwatobi R. Olaiya, Michael Soliman, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLogistic regressionMissing dataPsychological interventionOdds ratioMeta-analysisClinical trialViral loadMEDLINEHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicinePsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the definition of HIV virological outcomes in the literature and factors associated with outcomes and missing outcome data. METHODS: We conducted a methodological review of HIV RCTs using a search (2009-2019) of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.Only full-text, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that measured virological outcomes in people living with HIV, and published in English were included.We extracted study details and outcomes. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with a viral threshold ≤50 copies/mL and linear regression to identify factors associated with missing outcome data. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5847 articles; 180 were included. A virological outcome was the primary outcome in 73.5% of studies. 89 studies (49.4%) used virological success. The remaining used change in viral load (VL) (33 studies, 18.3%); virological failure (59 studies, 32.8%); or virological rebound (9 studies, 5.0%). 96 studies (53.3%) set the threshold at ≤50 copies/mL; and 33.1% used multiple measures.Compared with government and privately funded studies, RCTs with industry funding (adjusted OR 6.39; 95% CI 2.15 to 19.00; p<0.01) were significantly associated with higher odds of using a VL threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Publication year, intervention type, income level and number of patients were not associated with a threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Trials with pharmacological interventions had less missing data (β=-11.04; 95% CI -20.02 to -1.87; p=0.02). DISCUSSION: Country source of funding was associated with VL threshold choice and studies with pharmacological interventions had less missing data, which may in part explain heterogeneous virological outcomes across studies. Multiple measures of VL were not associated with missing data. The development of formal guidelines on virological outcome reporting in RCTs is needed.

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)0.476
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.776
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4760.776
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.027
Bibliometrics0.0220.027
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.949
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→