SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Dolutegravir-based regimens on patient satisfaction and quality of life among people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPotentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are associated with adverse health outcomes. The use of PIM among persons living with HIV (PLHIV) could be more problematic due to peculiarities such as antiretroviral toxicity and drug-disease interactions. However, PIM among PLHIV continues to receive little attention. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review and estimate the prevalence of PIM among PLHIV.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2024. Studies included were peer-reviewed articles that determined PIM prevalence using validated explicit or implicit tools and provided statistical information on the measured outcomes. Systematic, narrative, and literature reviews as well as case studies, commentaries, and editorials were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. Subgroup analysis was performed for the different geographic regions, PIM criteria, age, study period, and median numbers of medicines. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses, publication bias, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted.
resultsA total of 13 articles, including 3200 PLHIV, were included for the systematic review, while meta-analysis was conducted using 8 studies comprising 2546 PLHIV. Most of the studies (46%) employed a cross-sectional study design. 11 out of the 13 studies were conducted in Europe. Most studies reported benzodiazepines as the most common PIM among PLHIV, while hypertension and dyslipidaemia were identified as the most frequent comorbidities. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM was 44.8% (95% CI, 32%-58%) using a random-effect model. PIM prevalence among PLHIV was higher among those exposed to polypharmacy (59.3%; CI: 48.9% – 68.9%), those aged > 70 years (44.6%; CI: 24.1–67.1), and post-COVID (48.9%; CI: 39%-59%).
conclusionThis study suggests that PIM exposure among PLHIV is a budding issue. Findings from this review advocate for mitigating measures against PIM use. Also, this review contributes data on the use of PIM across different cohorts, creating awareness for policymakers and health managers. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO – CRD42024529411.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.