ArticleSexually transmitted infections2000
Screening for HIV infection in genitourinary medicine clinics: a lost opportunity? British Co-operative Clinical Group.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fear of venepuncture as a barrier to testing for blood-borne infection and use of an oral fluid test as an alternative to venepuncture in a genitourinary medicine clinic.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- HIV testing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Uptake of HIV screening in genitourinary medicine after change to "opt-out" consent.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the policy and practice of HIV testing in genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom.
designAll 176 consultants in charge of genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom were sent a policy and practice questionnaire. A self selected group of 53 clinics conducted a retrospective case note survey of the first 100 patients seen in each clinic in 1998.
settingGenitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Consultants in charge of, and case notes of patients attending, genitourinary medicine clinics.
interventionsNone.
main outcome measuresNumber of patients tested for HIV.
resultsConsultants' assessments of their rate of HIV testing often exceeded the actual rates of testing in the clinic as a whole. The majority of patients deemed to be at high risk requested an HIV test. The exception were heterosexuals who had lived in sub-Saharan Africa. Among attenders at high risk of HIV who did not request a test, 57/196 (29%) were not offered one by clinic staff. Two fifths (51/130) of consultants felt the proportion of patients tested in their clinic was too low. The commonest reason given for this was a lack of time, especially that of health advisers.
conclusionsA substantial minority of people with HIV infection attending genitourinary medicine clinics fail to have their infection diagnosed. Two major reasons were identified. Firstly, a test was not always offered to those at high risk of HIV. Secondly, a lack of resources, mainly staff, which prevents some clinics from increasing their level of testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.