Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25748668›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Using HIV surveillance registry data to re-link persons to care: the RSVP Project in San Francisco.

Kate Buchacz, Miao-Jung Chen, Maree Kay Parisi, Maya Yoshida-Cervantes, Erin Antunez, Viva Delgado, Nicholas J Moss, Susan Scheer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Informing Data to Care: Contacting Persons Sampled for the Medical Monitoring Project.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kate BuchaczDivision of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Miao-Jung ChenSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Maree Kay ParisiSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Maya Yoshida-CervantesSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Erin AntunezSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Viva DelgadoSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Nicholas J MossAlameda County Public Health Department, Oakland, California, United States of America.
Susan ScheerSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons with unsuppressed HIV viral load (VL) who disengage from care may experience poor clinical outcomes and potentially transmit HIV. We assessed the feasibility and yield of using the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) enhanced HIV surveillance system (eHARS) to identify and re-engage such persons in care.

methodsUsing SFDPH eHARS data as of 4/20/2012 (index date), we selected HIV-infected adults who were alive, had no reported VL or CD4 cell count results in the past nine months (proxy for "out-of-care") and a VL >200 copies/mL drawn nine to 15 months earlier. We prioritized cases residing locally for investigation, and used information from eHARS and medical and public health databases to contact them for interview and referral to the SFDPH linkage services (LINCS). Twelve months later, we matched-back to eHARS data to assess how HIV laboratory reporting delays affected original eligibility, and if persons had any HIV laboratory results performed and reported within 12 months after index date ('new labs').

resultsAmong 434 eligible persons, 282 were prioritized for investigation, of whom 75 (27%) were interviewed, 79 (28%) could not be located, and 48 (17%) were located out of the area. Among the interviewed, 54 (72%) persons accepted referral to LINCS. Upon match-back to eHARS data, 324 (75%) in total were confirmed as eligible, including 221 (78%) of the investigated; most had new labs.

conclusionsAmong the investigated persons presumed out-of-care, we interviewed and offered LINCS referral to about one-quarter, demonstrating the feasibility but limited yield of our project. Matching to updated surveillance data revealed that a substantial minority did not disengage from care and that most re-engaged in HIV care. Verifying persons' HIV care status with medical providers and improving timeliness of transfer and cross-jurisdictional sharing of HIV laboratory data may aid future efforts.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceRegistriesAdultFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSan Francisco

Identifiers

PMID25748668
PMCPMC4352048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.