TABLE 4.

Comparison of results for primary and subgroup analyses of the COC-HIV and NetEn-HIV relationship using random effects models^*

		Number of studies	I2 statistic (95% Confidence Interval)	Pooled HR (95% Confidence Interval)	Studies included
Primary analysis – COCs		10	0% (0%, 48.6%)	1.00 (0.86, 1.16)	16, 18, 19, 24, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47
MSM-IPTW analysis – COCs		5	0% (0%, 55.2%)	1.03 (0.81, 1.32)	16, 17, 18, 19, 47
Subgroup analysis – COCs
	Higher risk women	2	0% (0%, 0%)	1.49 (1.04, 2.13)	16, 37
	Women in the general population	8	0% (0%, 0%)	0.92 (0.78, 1.18)	18, 19, 24, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47
	Prospective cohort	2	52% (0%, 88.3%)	--	37, 40
	Sample from RCT	8	0% (0%, 0%)	0.91 (0.75, 1.10)	16, 18, 19, 24, 38, 44, 45, 47
Sensitivity analysis – COCs
	Reference group includes women using non-hormonal or no methods#	8	0% (0%, 64.8%)	1.00 (0.85, 1.17)	16, 18, 19, 37, 38, 40, 45, 47
	Inter-survey interval ≤ 3 months%	8	0% (0%, 64.3%)	1.00 (0.86, 1.16)	16, 18, 19, 37, 40, 44, 45, 47
Primary analysis – NetEN		5	0% (0%, 74.6%)	1.10 (0.88, 1.37)	18, 19, 38, 39, 47
IPTW-MSM analysis – NetEn		2	36% (0%, 78.1%)	1.08 (0.77, 1.52)	18, 47

^*All pooled analyses were limited to published, prospective studies that assessed incident HIV infection where the exposure category was predominantly (or exclusively) COCs/NetEn, the comparison group was comprised of women using non-hormonal or no contraceptive method (including condom users, unless noted), the model was adjusted for potential confounders of the HC-HIV relationship, including condom use and age, and no more than 30% of the study population was lost to follow up.

^#Two studies in which condom users were explicitly excluded from the reference group [24, 44] were excluded.

^%Two studies with inter-survey intervals for 6 [38] and 10 months [24] were excluded.