ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2009
Screening HIV-infected patients for non-AIDS-defining malignancies.
Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a Multifaceted Intervention on Promoting Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy Among Persons in HIV Primary Care: A Pilot Study.Clinical and translational science · 2015Trial
- Risk of all-cause mortality associated with nonfatal AIDS and serious non-AIDS events among adults infected with HIV.AIDS (London, England) · 2010Trial
- Colorectal cancer incidence and screening in US Medicaid patients with and without HIV infection.AIDS care · 2014Article
- A case report of human immunodeficiency virus-associated anaplastic lymphoma kinase protein-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma.SpringerPlus · 2013Article
- Cancer screening in patients infected with HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2011Review
- Characteristics of non-AIDS-defining malignancies in the HAART era: a clinico-epidemiological study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2011Article
- Management of prostate cancer in HIV-positive patients.Nature reviews. Urology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of antiretroviral therapy has reduced mortality and shifted the spectrum of malignancies affecting people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH). We review guidelines and evidence for screening PLWH for non-AIDS-defining malignancies as compared with the general population. Cervical cancer screening clearly differs for HIV-seropositive women, with two Pap tests 6 months apart in the first year and then annually if normal. The role of cervical human papillomavirus screening has not yet been defined in HIV-seropositive women. Anal cancer screening consists of an annual digital rectal examination, and some (but not all) guidelines also recommend annual anal Pap tests. Screening for breast and colorectal cancer should follow standard, age-appropriate screening recommendations that apply to the general population. Screening HIV-infected men for prostate cancer, as with the general population, lacks a clear benefit. Despite increasing rates of hepatocellular carcinoma and lung cancers among PLWH, there is insufficient evidence to support routine screening.
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.