ArticleAmerican journal of public health2010
Assessing targeted screening and low rates of HIV testing.
Article in American journal of public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk-Based Screening Tools to Optimise HIV Testing Services: a Systematic Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Pooled it
- Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2013Trial
- Timeliness of diagnosis of HIV in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: A mixed-methods study.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2019Article
- Expanded HIV testing in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2009-2011.American journal of public health · 2013Article
- Point-of-Care HIV Testing and Linkage in an Urban Cohort in the Southern US.AIDS research and treatment · 2013Article
- Routine HIV Screening in an Urban Community Health Center: Results from a Geographically Focused Implementation Science Program.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe assessed rates of HIV testing based on targeting patients with identified risk factors at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, DC (VAMC-DC), where written informed consent along with pretest and posttest counseling had, until recently, been required by federal law.
methodsA cumulative retrospective review of the period 2000 through 2007 was conducted to assess the number of patients who were provided medical care at VAMC-DC, tested for HIV, and underwent confirmatory testing. Data on demographic characteristics and risks for HIV acquisition were also collected.
resultsAt VAMC-DC, 3.8% to 4.9% (mean=4.25%) of patients in care without known HIV infection underwent HIV screening annually. On average, HIV was confirmed at a yearly rate of 3.4% among those tested. During the study period, HIV prevalence ranged from 2.1% to 2.5%. Among patients receiving HIV care, 41.5% disclosed no risk factors for HIV acquisition.
conclusionsGiven that the HIV prevalence observed in this study was above 2% and that 41.5% of patients in care did not disclose any acquisition risks, targeted HIV screening has not been sufficient. HIV testing must be broadened and offered as part of routine medical care.
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.