Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26588175›Full record

ArticleAIDS (London, England)2016

Validation of a screening tool to identify older children living with HIV in primary care facilities in high HIV prevalence settings.

Tsitsi Bandason, Grace McHugh, Ethel Dauya, Stanley Mungofa, Shungu M Munyati, Helen A Weiss, Hilda Mujuru, Katharina Kranzer, Rashida A Ferrand

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Treatment-adjusted prevalence to assess HIV testing programmes.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tsitsi BandasonaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare bHarare City Health, Harare, Zimbabwe cDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK dDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe eClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Grace McHugh
Ethel Dauya
Stanley Mungofa
Shungu M Munyati
Helen A Weiss
Hilda Mujuru
Katharina Kranzer
Rashida A Ferrand
Biomedical Research and Training Institute · ZWUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust 095878/Z/11Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe previously proposed a simple tool consisting of five items to screen for risk of HIV infection in adolescents (10-19 years) in Zimbabwe. The objective of this study is to validate the performance of this screening tool in children aged 6-15 years attending primary healthcare facilities in Zimbabwe.

methodsChildren who had not been previously tested for HIV underwent testing with caregiver consent. The screening tool was modified to include four of the original five items to be appropriate for the younger age range, and was administered. A receiver operator characteristic analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the modified tool were assessed against the HIV test result.

resultsA total of 9568 children, median age 9 (interquartile, IQR: 7-11) years and 4971 (52%) men, underwent HIV testing. HIV prevalence was 4.7% (95% confidence interval, CI:4.2-5.1%) and increased from 1.4% among those scoring zero on the tool to 63.6% among those scoring four (P < 0.001). Using a score of not less than one as the cut-off for HIV testing, the tool had a sensitivity of 80.4% (95% CI:76.5-84.0%), specificity of 66.3% (95% CI:65.3-67.2%), positive predictive value of 10.4% and a negative predictive value of 98.6%. The number needed to screen to identify one child living with HIV would drop from 22 to 10 if this screening tool was used.

conclusionThe screening tool is a simple and sensitive method to identify children living with HIV in this setting. It can be used by lay healthcare workers and help prioritize limited resources.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdolescentChildFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID26588175
PMCPMC4937807
OpenAlexW2178323218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.