ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2019
Differences among diagnostic testing algorithms in the time from HIV diagnosis to care.
Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2019. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A method to alleviate false-positive results of the Elecsys HIV combi PT assay.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association between the type of diagnostic testing algorithm for HIV infection and the time from diagnosis to care has not been fully evaluated. Here we extend an earlier analysis of this association by controlling for patient and diagnosing facility characteristics. STUDY
designDescriptive analysis of HIV infection diagnoses during 2016 reported to the National HIV Surveillance System through December 2017. Algorithm type: traditional = initial HIV antibody immunoassay followed by a Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test; recommended = initial HIV antigen/antibody immunoassay followed by HIV-1/2 type-differentiating antibody test; rapid = two CLIA-waived rapid tests on the same date.
resultsIn multivariate analyses controlling for patient and diagnosing facility characteristics, persons whose infection was diagnosed using the rapid algorithm were more likely to be linked to care within 30 days than those whose infection was diagnosed using the other testing algorithms (p < 0.01). The median time to link to care during a 30-day follow-up was 9.0 days (95% CI 8.0-12.0) after the rapid algorithm, 17.0 days (95% CI 17.0-18.0) after the recommended algorithm, and 23.0 days (95% CI 22.0-25.0) after the traditional algorithm.
conclusionsThe time from HIV diagnosis to care varied with the type of testing algorithm. The median time to care was shortest for the rapid algorithm, longest for the traditional algorithm, and intermediate for the recommended algorithm. These results demonstrate the importance of choosing an algorithm with a short time between initial specimen collection and report of the final result to the patient.
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.