ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2018
Repeat Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing by Transmission Risk Group and Rurality of Residence in North Carolina.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2018. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding of repeat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing (RHT) is limited and the impact of rural residence as a potential barrier to RHT is unknown. Rural populations are of particular interest in the Southeastern United States because of their disproportionate HIV burden.
methodsWe used HIV surveillance data from publicly funded HIV testing sites in North Carolina to assess repeat testing by transmission risk group and residential rurality in a retrospective cohort study. Linear binomial regression models were used to estimate adjusted, 1-year cumulative incidences and cumulative incidence differences comparing RHT within transmission risk populations by level of rurality.
resultsIn our total study population of 600,613 persons, 19,275 (3.2%) and 9567 (1.6%) self-identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) and persons who inject drugs (PWID), respectively. A small minority, 13,723 (2.3%) resided in rural ZIP codes. Men who have sex with men were most likely to repeat test (unadjusted, 1-year cumulative incidence after an initial negative test, 16.4%) compared with PWID (13.2%) and persons who did not identify as either MSM or PWID (13.6%). The greatest effect of rurality was within PWID; the adjusted, 1-year cumulative incidence of RHT was 6.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-11.4) percentage points higher among metropolitan versus rural PWID.
conclusionsOne-year cumulative incidence of RHT was low among all clients of publicly funded HIV testing sites in North Carolina, including MSM and PWID for whom annual testing is recommended. Our findings suggest a need for public health efforts to increase access to and support for RHT, particularly among rural PWID.
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.