Question · asked by 1 review
Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use vs usual care: HSV‐2 prevalence
- Population
- low and high‐risk populations
- Intervention
- Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use
- Comparison
- usual care
- Outcome
- HSV‐2 prevalence
Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use showed no clear difference in HSV‐2 prevalence compared with standard care (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use vs standard care HSV‐2 prevalence · low and high‐risk populations Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use showed no clear difference in HSV‐2 prevalence compared with standard care (moderate certainty). Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV… (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.2] | 2 studies · 2974 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural and community‐level interventions for increasing condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted… 2014 · 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.