1D Strong recommendation. Very low-quality evidence. Benefits appear to outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa. Evidence limited to case studies. Strong recommendation based mainly on case studies and expert judgment. 2A Weak recommendation. High-quality evidence. Benefits www.selleckchem.com/products/BKM-120.html closely balanced with risks and burdens. Consistent evidence from well-performed randomized, controlled trials or overwhelming

evidence of some other form. Further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of benefit and risk. Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients or societal values. 2B Weak recommendation. Moderate-quality evidence. Benefits closely balanced with risks

and burdens, some uncertainly in the estimates of benefits, risks and burdens. Evidence from randomized, controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methods flaws, indirect or imprecise). Further research may change the estimate of benefit and risk. Weak recommendation, alternative approaches likely to be better for some patients under some circumstances. 2C Weak recommendation. Low-quality evidence. Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens; benefits may be closely balanced with risks and burdens. Evidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or from randomized, controlled trials with serious flaws. Any estimate of effect is uncertain. Weak recommendation; other alternatives may be reasonable. 2D Weak recommendation. Ku-0059436 in vivo Very low-quality evidence. Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens; benefits may be closely balanced with risks and burdens. Evidence limited to case studies and expert judgment. Very weak recommendation; other alternatives may be equally not reasonable. Databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library Conference

abstracts: -  IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment Date parameters: -  Databases: July 2013 Five systemic literature searches were undertaken from published work and conference abstracts up until July 2011 as described in the BHIVA guidelines development manual. The population was defined as HIV-positive women covering five areas. Search questions were set by the Writing Group within each search as listed below Study design: Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized control trials (RCTs), observational, risk, economic Population: HIV-positive women Intervention: starting antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy Comparator: none Outcomes: death, AIDS, non-AIDS co-morbidities, maternal obstetric morbidity, infant mortality and morbidity, mother-to-child HIV transmission, drug resistance.