Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30859146›Full record

ReviewHepatology communications2019

Who to Test for Hepatitis C Virus in the Middle East and North Africa?: Pooled Analyses of 2,500 Prevalence Measures, Including 49 Million Tests.

Hiam Chemaitelly, Sarwat Mahmud, Silva P Kouyoumjian, Zaina Al-Kanaani, Joumana G Hermez, Laith J Abu-Raddad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatology communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Screening Strategies for Hepatitis C Virus.Hepatology communications · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hiam ChemaitellyInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation-Education City Doha Qatar.
Sarwat MahmudInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation-Education City Doha Qatar.
Silva P KouyoumjianInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation-Education City Doha Qatar.
Zaina Al-KanaaniInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation-Education City Doha Qatar.
Joumana G HermezDepartment of Communicable Diseases HIV/Hepatitis/STIs Unit, World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Cairo Egypt.
Laith J Abu-RaddadInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation-Education City Doha Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-0506

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expanding hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment coverage is challenged by limited testing and diagnosis. This study assessed the risk of exposure, for the Middle East and North Africa, by population, yields of testing, and program efficiency of testing strategies. A standardized and systematically assembled database of 2,542 HCV antibody prevalence studies on 49 million individuals was analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled measures for risk of exposure, risk ratio (RR) of exposure, and yields of testing. Program expansion path curves were calculated to assess program efficiency. Countries clustered into two patterns: generalized versus concentrated epidemics. In generalized epidemics (Egypt and Pakistan) relative to general populations, RR of exposure was 6.8 for people who inject drugs (PWID), 6.7 for populations with liver conditions, and 5.0 for populations with high-risk health care exposures. In concentrated epidemics (remaining countries), corresponding RRs were 97.2, 45.1, and 22.2, respectively. In generalized epidemics, the number of tests needed to identify a chronic infection was 2.5 for PWID, 2.4 for populations with liver conditions, 2.7 for populations with high-risk health care exposures, and 14.2 for general populations. In concentrated epidemics, corresponding numbers were 2.8, 8.6, 5.1, and 222.2, respectively. Program expansion path curves demonstrated major gains in program efficiency by targeting specific populations. Risk of exposure varies immensely by population and shows a distinctive hierarchy, particularly in concentrated epidemics. Testing strategies can be much more efficient through population prioritization by risk of exposure. General population testing is not programmatically efficient in concentrated epidemics.

Identifiers

PMID30859146
PMCPMC6396361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.