ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Interpreting and implementing the 2006 CDC recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2013Trial
- Human immunodeficiency virus testing behaviors among US adults: the roles of individual factors, legislative status, and public health resources.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2011Article
- Effect of an emergency department HIV testing program on the proportion of emergency department patients who have been tested.Annals of emergency medicine · 2011Article
- Rapid HIV testing program implementation: lessons from the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2009Article
- Consistency of state statutes with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations for health care settings.Annals of internal medicine · 2009Review
- Nomenclature and definitions for emergency department human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing: report from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2009Article
- Routine Screening for HIV Infection in Medical Care Settings: A Decade of Progress and Next Opportunities.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
- Communication Between Middle SES Black Women and Healthcare Providers About HIV Testing.Journal of the National Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
On September 22, 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced recommendations to expand the role of health-care providers in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing. These clearlyjustified guidelines aim to remove traditional testing barriers, and thereby increase the rate of earlier diagnosis. This overarching strategy to increase testing in all health-care settings also includes less traditional sites such as emergency departments and correctional health-care facilities. The motivation for the guidelines is intuitive, as the need for augmented testing is well supported. Of those infected with HIV in the U.S., approximately one-quarter are unaware of their disease status. People who are unaware of their infection disproportionately account for new transmissions and are unable to benefit from treatment. The HIV incidence has not fallen below approximately 40,000 new diagnoses per year, of which approximately 40% are diagnosed late in the course of infection. Universal screening, even in populations with a disease prevalence of 0.1%, has been shown to be cost-effective. While the guidelines have been reviewed in depth, current interpretations do not adequately outline a structure for further debate or facilitate incremental or partial implementation of the recommendations. This must be remedied, as comprehensive implementation of the guidelines will be controversial or logistically impossible in many settings for the foreseeable future. Herein, we provide a clarified interpretation by outlining the core guideline elements individually and within the context of current barriers to implementation. We then discuss potential combinations of the core elements that would enable increased testing in settings where comprehensive guideline implementation is not possible.
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.