ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2017
Estimating HIV Incidence Using a Cross-Sectional Survey: Comparison of Three Approaches in a Hyperendemic Setting, Ndhiwa Subcounty, Kenya, 2012.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recent levels and trends in HIV incidence rates among adolescent girls and young women in ten high-prevalence African countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Global health · 2019Pooled it
- Sex disparities and partners' positive HIV status in HIV recent infection among people who inject drugs in Ukraine.AIDS (London, England) · 2026Article
- HIV epidemiologic trends among occupational groups in Rakai, Uganda: A population-based longitudinal study, 1999-2016.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Determination of HIV status and identification of incident HIV infections in a large, community-randomized trial: HPTN 071 (PopART).Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2020Article
- Development of an international external quality assurance program for HIV-1 incidence using the Limiting Antigen Avidity assay.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEstimating HIV incidence is critical for identifying groups at risk for HIV infection, planning and targeting interventions, and evaluating these interventions over time. The use of reliable estimation methods for HIV incidence is thus of high importance. The aim of this study was to compare methods for estimating HIV incidence in a population-based cross-sectional survey. DESIGN/
methodsThe incidence estimation methods evaluated included assay-derived methods, a testing history-derived method, and a probability-based method applied to data from the Ndhiwa HIV Impact in Population Survey (NHIPS). Incidence rates by sex and age and cumulative incidence as a function of age were presented.
resultsHIV incidence ranged from 1.38 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-2.09] to 3.30 [95% CI 2.78-3.82] per 100 person-years overall; 0.59 [95% CI 0.00-1.34] to 2.89 [95% CI 0.86-6.45] in men; and 1.62 [95% CI 0.16-6.04] to 4.03 [95% CI 3.30-4.77] per 100 person-years in women. Women had higher incidence rates than men for all methods. Incidence rates were highest among women aged 15-24 and 25-34 years and highest among men aged 25-34 years.
conclusionComparison of different methods showed variations in incidence estimates, but they were in agreement to identify most-at-risk groups. The use and comparison of several distinct approaches for estimating incidence are important to provide the best-supported estimate of HIV incidence in the population.
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.