ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2014
Investigating barriers in HIV-testing oncology patients. The IBITOP study: phase I.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Congress of Drug Therapy in HIV Infection 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow, UK.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the advent of combined antiretroviral therapy (ART), the incidence of non-AIDS-defining cancers (non-ADCs) among HIV-positive patients is rising. We previously described HIV testing rates of <5% in our oncology centre, against a local HIV prevalence of 0.4% (1). We have since worked with the Service of Oncology to identify, how HIV testing can be optimized, we have conducted a study on investigating barriers in HIV-testing oncology patients (IBITOP) among treating oncologists and their patients.
methodsAfter an initial two-month pilot study to examine feasibility (2), we conducted the first phase of the IBITOP study between 1st July and 31st October 2013. Patients of unknown HIV status, newly diagnosed with solid-organ non-AIDS-defining cancer, and treated at Lausanne University Hospital were invited to participate. Patients were offered HIV testing as a part of their initial oncology work-up. Oncologist testing proposals and patient acceptance were the primary endpoints.
resultsOf 235 patients with a new oncology diagnosis, 10 were excluded (7 with ADCs and 3 of known HIV-positive status). Mean age was 62 years; 48% were men and 71% were Swiss. Of 225 patients, 75 (33%) were offered HIV testing. Of these, 56 (75%) accepted, of whom 52 (93%) were tested. A further ten patients were tested (without documentation of being offered a test), which gave a total testing rate of 28% (62/225). Among the 19 patients who declined testing, reasons cited included self-perceived absence of HIV risk, previous testing and palliative care. Of the 140 patients not offered HIV testing and not tested, reasons were documented for 35 (25%), the most common being previous testing and follow-up elsewhere. None of the 62 patients HIV tested had a reactive test.
conclusionsIn this study, one third of patients seen were offered testing and the HIV testing rate was fivefold higher than that of previously observed in this service. Most patients accepted testing when offered. As HIV-positive status impacts on the medical management of cancer patients, we recommend that HIV screening should be performed in settings, where HIV prevalence is >0.1%. Phase II of the IBITOP study is now underway to explore barriers to HIV screening among oncologists and patients following the updated national HIV testing guidelines which recommend testing in non-ADC patients undergoing chemotherapy.
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.