Observational studyBMJ open2019
Opt-out bloodborne virus screening: a cross-sectional observational study in an acute medical unit.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Blood-borne virus testing in European emergency departments: current evidence and service considerations.European journal of public health · 2025Pooled it
- Population-Based Testing for Undiagnosed Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- HIV testing in primary care in the West of Ireland: a mixed-method survey between 2013 and 2023.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Outcomes 10 Years After Implementing an Emergency Department Opt-out Bloodborne Virus Screening Program.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Acceptability of automatic screening for viral hepatitis in an emergency department setting: patient and healthcare worker perspectives.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRecent treatment developments for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) have greatly improved prognoses. Current screening practices are mainly risk based and are suboptimal. Improved efforts are critically needed to identify persons with these viruses. The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of an opt-out bloodborne virus (BBV) screening programme in an acute medical unit (AMU) and to describe the prevalence of HIV, HBV and HCV in this population. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a cross-sectional observational study in the AMU of a tertiary referral hospital in Galway, a city in the west of Ireland.
participants1936 patients entered the study; 54% were male, mean age was 53.1 years (SD 19.6). During the study period, all patients attending the AMU aged ≧16 years who were having bloods drawn and who had the ability to verbally consent for an additional blood sample met the inclusion criteria for the study.
resultsOver 44 weeks, 1936/4793 (40.4%) patients consented to BBV panel testing. Diagnosed prevalence rates for HIV, HBV and HCV were 0.5/1000, 2/1000 and 1.5/1000, respectively. There was one HIV-positive result; the patient was already engaged in care. Four patients tested positive for HBV surface antigen; one new diagnosis, one previously lost to follow-up and two already engaged in care. Three patients had active HCV infection; two had been lost to follow-up and are now linked back into services.
conclusionBBV testing uptake of 40.4% is higher than previous studies in AMU settings that used opt-in strategies, but lower than expected, possibly due to not incorporating testing into routine practice. The diagnosed prevalence of HBV is notable as little data currently exist about its prevalence in Ireland. These data are valuable in order to inform further prevention strategies for these infections in low-prevalence settings.
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.