ArticlePloS one2019
Impact of a structured HIV testing program in a hospital emergency department and a primary care center.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Implementation of an early HIV diagnosis and treatment program in a hospital emergency department].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- Design and Proof of Concept of a Web-Based Questionnaire to Identify Patients at Risk for HIV and HCV Infection.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Systematic Review: Strategies for Improving HIV Testing and Detection Rates in European Hospitals.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- HIV and HCV screening by non-infectious diseases physicians: can we improve testing and hidden infection rates?Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The Negative Impact of COVID-19 in HCV, HIV, and HPV Surveillance Programs During the Different Pandemic Waves.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHIV testing guidelines are poorly implemented in most clinical settings. The best screening strategy and healthcare scenario are still unknown. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of a structured HIV testing intervention (DRIVE), compared to HIV testing as routinely performed in clinical practice, in two different clinical settings: a primary care center and an emergency department.
methodsProspective evaluation of an HIV testing strategy in two clinical settings from the same healthcare area. The DRIVE program included trained nurse practitioners to perform the screening, a questionnaire to assess the risk of exposure and HIV indicator conditions (RE&IC), and rapid HIV tests. The main variables between the DRIVE program and clinical practice were the absolute number of newly diagnosed HIV infections and testing coverage.
resultsThe DRIVE program included 5,329 participants, of which 51.2% reported at least one positive answer in the questionnaire. The estimated HIV testing coverage was significantly higher in the DRIVE program than in the routine clinical practice (7.17% vs. 0.96%, p < 0.001), and was better in the primary care center than in the emergency department with the two strategies. Twenty-two HIV-positive people were identified, with a rate of 8.6‰ in the emergency department vs. 2.2‰ in the primary care center (p = 0.001). A higher rate of new HIV diagnoses was found in the DRIVE program compared to routine clinical practice (29.6 vs. 3.1 per 100,000 patients attended; p < 0.001).
conclusionsAn easy-to-implement, structured intervention increased the absolute number of new HIV diagnoses and HIV tests, compared to routine clinical practice.
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.