ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2018
Trends in testing algorithms used to diagnose HIV infection, 2011-2015, United States and 6 dependent areas.
Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2018. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of an Alternative Laboratory-Based HIV Diagnostic Testing Algorithm Using HIV-1 RNA Viral Load.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Differences among diagnostic testing algorithms in the time from HIV diagnosis to care.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) issued updated laboratory testing recommendations for the diagnosis of HIV infection.
objectivesTo examine trends in the use of HIV diagnostic testing algorithms, and determine whether the use of different algorithms is associated with selected patient characteristics and linkage to HIV medical care. STUDY
designAnalysis of HIV infection diagnoses during 2011-2015 reported to the National HIV Surveillance System through December 2016. Algorithm classification: traditional = initial HIV antibody immunoassay followed by a Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test; recommended = initial HIV antibody IA followed by HIV-1/2 type-differentiating antibody test; rapid = two CLIA-waived rapid tests on same date.
resultsDuring 2011-2015, the percentage of HIV diagnoses made using the traditional algorithm decreased from 84% to 16%, the percentage using the recommended algorithm increased from 0.1% to 64%, and the percentage using the rapid testing algorithm increased from 0.1% to 2%. The percentage of persons linked to care within 30 days after HIV diagnosis in 2015 was higher for diagnoses using the recommended algorithm (59%) than for diagnoses using the traditional algorithm (55%) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsDuring 2011-2015, the percentage of HIV diagnoses reported using the recommended and rapid testing algorithms increased while the use of the traditional algorithm decreased. In 2015, persons with HIV diagnosed using the recommended algorithm were more promptly linked to care than those with diagnosis using the traditional algorithm.
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.