Trial reportPloS one2018
Targeted versus non-targeted HIV testing offered via electronic questionnaire in a Swiss emergency department: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03038724 (Randomised Study Comparing Two HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department Using an Electronic Tablet Questionnaire), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Randomised Study Comparing Two HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department Using an Electronic Tablet Questionnaire: The PETTSEQ Study (PErformance of Two Testing Strategies by Electronic Questionnaire)
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk-Based Screening Tools to Optimise HIV Testing Services: a Systematic Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Pooled it
- Universal opt-in HIV, HBV and HCV testing in an emergency department: implementation and outcomes of a comprehensive screening program.Infection · 2026Article
- Characterisation of new HIV diagnoses achieved in emergency departments using an opt-in strategy, Catalonia, Spain, July 2021 to March 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- Exploring the Acceptability of HIV Testing in the UK Dental Setting: A Qualitative Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Systematic Review: Strategies for Improving HIV Testing and Detection Rates in European Hospitals.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- [Emergency detection of HIV infection in patients consulting for conditions potentially related to occult infection: Initial results of the "Urgències VIHgila" program].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in HIV Testing in People Who Use Drugs Admitted to a Tertiary Care Hospital.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2022Article
- Targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Review
- Developing national strategies for reaching men with HIV testing services in Tanzania: results from the male catch-up plan.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Switzerland, the national HIV testing recommendations propose targeted testing. Although the emergency department (ED) is mentioned specifically as a site where HIV testing should take place, the testing rate in our ED is 1% of patients seen. The aim of this study was to use electronic tablets to offer testing to ED patients and to examine whether non-targeted screening increased testing rates compared to targeted testing.
methodsThis randomised, cross-over design study took place at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, between August and November 2015. Eligible patients were randomised to a targeted testing or a non-targeted screening arm. Using electronic tablets, targeted arm patients completed a risk factor assessment; patients with risk factors were offered free rapid HIV testing. Non-targeted arm patients received information about HIV and HIV testing on their tablet and were then offered testing. In a second step, patients who declined testing were crossed over to the other strategy. The primary endpoint was the HIV testing rate per arm.
resultsEighty patients were recruited to each study arm. In the targeted arm, 17 patients (of 80, 21%) had at least one risk factor and were offered testing, of whom eight (of 17, 47%) accepted. HIV testing rate in the targeted arm was 10% (8/80) compared to 48% (38/80) in the non-targeted arm (P<0.001). Secondary cross-screening, where targeted arm patients without risk factors were offered non-targeted screening, increased the testing rate in the targeted arm to 45% (36/80). Among patients offered testing, the acceptance rate did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms, at 48% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.9). DISCUSSION: In our centre, non-targeted HIV screening resulted in a higher testing rate than targeted testing due to more patients being offered a test. The acceptance rate of testing offered did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms. Electronic tablets were well-received by patients and easy to use. We conclude that non-targeted HIV screening using electronic tablets would increase the HIV testing rate in our ED.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03038724.
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.