ArticleCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada2016
Canadian and international recommendations on the frequency of HIV screening and testing: A systematic review.
Article in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence for optimal HIV testing intervals in HIV-negative individuals from various risk groups: a systematic review protocol.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014, the Public Health Agency of Canada estimated that 21% of the people living with HIV in Canada were unaware of their infection. Increased screening and testing for HIV is crucial to reducing the number of undiagnosed infections. To ensure the best use of available resources, it is important to determine the optimal intervals for HIV screening and testing.
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the recommendations for the frequency of HIV screening and testing in different populations.
methodsTo identify eligible guidelines, a comprehensive two-tiered search strategy of journals and websites of governments and non-governmental organizations and a three-tiered screening strategy (title, abstract and full content screen) were used. Guidelines were eligible for inclusion if they, a) were published between 2000 and 2015 in English or French, and b) provided guidance on HIV screening/testing intervals for at least one population.
resultsOf the 609 documents retrieved from the search, 34 guidelines met the eligibility criteria. The most frequently mentioned populations were pregnant women, men who have sex with men (MSM) and the general population. Overall, there was consensus on at least annual testing for MSM, intravenous drug users, individuals with HIV-positive sex partners, individuals with multiple partners, sex workers and their clients, migrants from HIV-endemic countries and indigenous peoples. Of the 20 guidelines that provided recommendations for pregnant women, the most common recommendation (n=9) was to test as early as possible during each pregnancy; four guidelines recommended screening during the first prenatal visit; three recommended routine HIV testing; and four suggested retesting in the third trimester regardless of maternal risk of HIV infection. Consensus on HIV testing of the general public, incarcerated people and individuals diagnosed with other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) was lacking. Four guidelines cited a lack of data for not providing specific recommendations in the general population.
conclusionsAdditional evidence is needed to refine the recommendations for pregnant women and inform the optimal timing of HIV testing, especially in the general population, individuals diagnosed with other STIs and incarcerated people.
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.