Table 1.
PICOS methodology.
Fig 1.
Flow-chart of systematic literature search.
*One congress abstract (Gallant et al. 2012) [50] which was presented during the XIX international AIDS conference was replaced by a complete communication that became available at the data-extraction stage (Gallant et al. 2013) [12].
Fig 2.
Network diagram—change in eGFR from baseline using the CG method.
CG: Cockcroft–Gault; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate. The number on the arrowed line represents the number of studies reported pairwise comparison.
Fig 3.
Network diagram—change in eGFR from baseline using the pooled MDRD and CKD-EPI methods.
CKD-EPI: Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; MDRD: Modification Diet Renal Disease. The number on the arrowed line represents the number of studies reported pairwise comparison.
Table 2.
Study design and patients’ demographic characteristics.
Table 3.
Renal baseline characteristics and treatment regimens of patients.
Table 4.
Mean change in eGFR from baseline from individual studies (CG method).
Fig 4.
Results from the MTC: Difference in mean change in eGFR from baseline at 48 weeks (using CG method).
CG: Cockcroft–Gault; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; MTC: Mixed-Treatment Comparison.
Table 5.
MTC results providing the difference in mean change in eGFR from baseline compared with ATV/r + TDF/FTC (CG method).
Fig 5.
48-week safety ranking on the mean change in eGFR from baseline (assessed with the CG method).
CG: Cockcroft–Gault; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate. The values of this double entry table were computed using the rank function in WinBugs 1.4. Each row represents the probability of a treatment occupying different rankings (the blue one being the highest one) and each column represents the probability of different treatments occupying a specific rank (the blue one being the highest one).The table is organised so that the treatment with the highest probability of being ranked first (safest) is placed at the top row and the treatment with the highest probability of begin ranked last (most harmful) is at the bottom.
Table 6.
Mean change in eGFR from baseline from individual studies (pooled MDRD and CKD-EPI methods).
Fig 6.
Results from the MTC: Difference in mean change in eGFR from baseline at 48 weeks (using MDRD and CKD-EPI methods).
CKD-EPI: Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; MDRD: Modification Diet Renal Disease; MTC: Mixed-Treatment Comparison.
Table 7.
MTC results providing the difference in mean change in eGFR from baseline compared with ATV/r + TDF/FTC (pooled MDRD and CKD-EPI methods).
Fig 7.
48-week safety ranking on the mean change in eGFR from baseline (assessed with the MDRD and CKD-EPI methods).
CKD-EPI: Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology; eGFR: estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; MDRD: Modification Diet Renal Disease. The values of this double entry table were computed using the rank function in WinBugs 1.4. Each row represents the probability of a treatment occupying different rankings (the blue one being the highest one) and each column represents the probability of different treatments occupying a specific rank (the blue one being the highest one).The table is organised so that the treatment with the highest probability of being ranked first (safest) is placed at the top row and the treatment with the highest probability of begin ranked last (most harmful) is at the bottom.