Poor citation, coding and reporting: a review of adherence-enhancing interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy creates an inaccurate picture of the state of the field

M. de Bruin*, J. Simoni, K. R. Amico, J. T. Parsons, Jeffery Fisher, S. A. Safren

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The recent systematic review of interventions to promote antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence by Mathes and colleagues [1] published in HIV Medicine contains several methodological flaws that lead to an overly pessimistic depiction of the state of the literature; indeed, it contradicts other widely cited reviews on the topic that demonstrate the efficacy of such interventions to improve both adherence and viral load (VL) [2−5]. Curiously, the only prior review cited was Simoni [5], and only then to support a lack of efficacy for adherence interventions, which is contrary to the main findings of that review. This bias in citation creates unfounded authority for the authors' dire conclusions that ‘adherence enhancing interventions are not promising’.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)381-382
Number of pages2
JournalHIV Medicine
Volume15
Issue number6
Early online date10 Jun 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2014

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Poor citation, coding and reporting: a review of adherence-enhancing interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy creates an inaccurate picture of the state of the field'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this