Question · asked by 1 review
d4T vs AZT: Clinical progression
- Population
- patients with initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral‐naive individuals
- Intervention
- d4T
- Comparison
- AZT
- Outcome
- Clinical progression
d4T showed no clear difference in clinical progression compared with AZT (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
d4T vs AZT Clinical progression · patients with initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral‐naive individuals d4T showed no clear difference in clinical progression compared with AZT (low certainty). Stavudine or zidovudine in three‐drug combination therapy for initial treatment of HIV infection in… (2010) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.78 [0.28, 2.13] | 7 studies · 719 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stavudine or zidovudine in three‐drug combination therapy for initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral‐naïve individuals 2010 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.