ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2017
Budgetary Impact of Compliance With STI Screening Guidelines in Persons Living With HIV.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in Patients with Sexually Transmitted Diseases.Advanced biomedical research · 2020Article
- Reverse syphilis screening algorithm fails to demonstrate cost effectiveness in persons living with HIV.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe 2015 Centers for Disease Control Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines recommend annual screening of all people living with HIV (PLWH) for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and syphilis; annual Trichomonas vaginalis screening is recommended for HIV-infected women. The study objective was to evaluate the budgetary impact of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening. We hypothesized that recommended STI screening is costly and would not be covered in full by insurers.
methodsThis cost analysis evaluates charges and reimbursement for recommended screening for the above 4 STIs. This study projects the net yield (reimbursement minus expenditures) of providing tests to eligible PLWH receiving care at an urban HIV clinic in Birmingham, AL. Four scenarios evaluated the net yield when different laboratory providers, rates of compliance, and Ryan White Program fund availability were examined.
resultsThe number of patients receiving care at our HIV clinic from August 2014 to August 2015 was 3163 (768 female and 2395 male patients). Annual screening for N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, syphilis, and T. vaginalis would lead to a mean net loss of $129,416, $118,304, $72,625, and $13,523, respectively. Most costly scenarios for a health system include the use of a regional laboratory (-$1,241,101) and lack of Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding (-$85,148). DISCUSSION: Compliance with STI screening practices is costly. Sustainability will require critical analysis of true costs and cost-effectiveness of STI screening tests in PLWH. Providers, policy makers, and insurers each have a role in ensuring the provision of these evidence-based services to PLWH.
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.