ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2015
Brief report: Validation of a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool using a national HIV testing cohort.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Screening in Emergency Departments: Results From the Pragmatic Randomized HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments Trial.Annals of emergency medicine · 2024Trial
- Comparison of HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Trial
- The impact of nurse-driven targeted HIV screening in 8 emergency departments: study protocol for the DICI-VIH cluster-randomized two-period crossover trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Trial
- Patient choice in opt-in, active choice, and opt-out HIV screening: randomized clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Trial
- Development of a Quality Measure to Improve HIV and Syphilis Screening in the Emergency Department: A Modified Delphi Approach.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- HIV Risk Score and Prediction Model in the United States: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- HIV Risk and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Eligibility Among Emergency Department Patients.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of a Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics-Based Risk-Score Algorithm for Targeting HIV Testing Among Adults in Kenya.AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
- Care continuum entry interventions: seek and test strategies to engage persons most impacted by HIV within the United States.AIDS (London, England) · 2018Review
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Routine screening is recommended for HIV detection. HIV risk estimation remains important. Our goal was to validate the Denver HIV Risk Score using a national cohort from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients of 13 years and older were included, 4,830,941 HIV tests were performed, and 0.6% newly diagnosed infections were identified. Of all visits, 9% were very low risk (HIV prevalence = 0.20%), 27% low risk (HIV prevalence = 0.17%), 41% moderate risk (HIV prevalence = 0.39%), 17% high risk (HIV prevalence = 1.19%), and 6% very high risk (HIV prevalence = 3.57%). The Denver HIV Risk Score accurately categorized patients into different HIV risk groups.
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.