Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom: Gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 3‐month
Promotion of female and male condom leads to lower gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 3‐month compared with promotion of male condom (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom Gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 3‐month · sex workers Promotion of female and male condom leads to lower gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 3‐month compared with promotion of male condom (high certainty). Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in… (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.63 [0.45, 0.88] | 1 study · 504 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in low‐ and middle‐income countries 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.