ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2016
Prevalence of HIV infection and acceptability of point-of-care testing in a Canadian inner-city emergency department.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A need for implementation science to optimise the use of evidence-based interventions in HIV care: A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Understanding barriers and facilitators to HIV testing in Canada from 2009-2019: A systematic mixed studies review.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Utility of Point-of-Care HIV Testing on a Canadian Internal Medicine Inpatient Unit.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to estimate the seroprevalence of HIV infection and the acceptability of point-of-care HIV testing in an innercity Canadian emergency department.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study in an urban tertiary care emergency department between August 2009 and January 2011. Randomly selected patients were enrolled using probabilistic sampling based on patient volumes. Inclusion criteria were age 19-75 years and ability to provide informed consent. Patients who were intoxicated or in extremis were excluded. After informed consent and brief pre-test counselling, participants' HIV status was obtained using the INSTI HIV-1/HIV-2 Antibody Test. Participants completed a questionnaire on HIV risk behaviours and satisfaction with emergency department HIV testing. Participants with a positive result or those having other blood tests received confirmatory Western blot testing. HIV-positive participants were offered immediate referral to an HIV specialty clinic.
resultsA total of 2,077 patients were approached, and 1,402 (67.5%) agreed to participate. Participants' mean age was 43.3 years, and 58.4% of participants were male. The HIV antibody seroprevalence based on the point-of-care test was 65/1,402 (4.6%; 95% confidence interval: 3.5%-5.8%). No new diagnoses of HIV were identified in our cohort. Patient satisfaction with point-of-care HIV testing was high (mean satisfaction score 9.6/10).
conclusionOn the basis of a rapid, point-of-care HIV antibody test, the seroprevalence rate of HIV in an inner city emergency department was 4.6%. Point-of-care testing in the emergency department is acceptable, and patients' satisfaction with the testing procedure was high.
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.