ArticleBMC public health2019
Influence of anonymous HIV testing on national HIV surveillance in the Republic of Korea (2000 to 2015): a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in HIV testing and Seroprevalence among key populations at public health centers in South Korea, 2011-2023: a nationwide analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A Korean Post-Marketing Surveillance Study of Dolutegravir Single-Agent Tablets in Patients with HIV-1.Infection & chemotherapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOwing to the continuous increase in the number of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in Korea, public health centers (PHCs) have performed anonymous tests since 1989. No study has examined the patterns of anonymous HIV testing performed at PHCs and the characteristics of HIV infection detected in those tests. We aimed to assess the influence of anonymous HIV testing on Korea's national HIV surveillance.
methodsHIV screening test data from 253 PHCs over a 16-year period were classified into 13 groups based on reason for testing. For anonymous HIV test takers (Anonymous), the HIV positivity per 10,000 tests was calculated, as repetitions could not be distinguished. Those with suspected HIV infection voluntarily underwent HIV testing and revealed their identity (Suspected). HIV prevalence was calculated as the number of HIV-positive persons per 10,000 test takers. Analyses were performed using chi-square and Cochran-Armitage trend test with SAS 9.4.
resultsApproximately 400,000 HIV screening tests were performed at PHCs annually, which remained unchanged in the past 10 years. The proportion of anonymous testing increased from < 3.0% before 2014 to 4.8% in 2014 and 6.1% in 2015. While the number of HIV cases increased, the number of anonymous HIV-positive test results per 10,000 tests decreased from 68.8 in 2010 to 41.8 in 2015. The HIV prevalence among the suspected was approximately 20.0 per 10,000 test takers before 2014, which steeply increased to 71.6 in 2015. Those with suspected HIV were predominantly men, aged 20 years, foreigners, and metropolitan city dwellers in the last 6 years. The high prevalence of persons with suspected HIV resulted in a doubling of HIV prevalence at PHCs between 2014 and 2015.
conclusionsAnonymous and Suspected, which were driven by similar motives, impacted each other. Increase in HIV prevalence among the suspected led to a higher HIV prevalence among all test takers in PHCs and higher proportions of HIV infection nationwide, which could be attributed to the increase in the number of anonymous tests performed in PHCs. HIV positivity among the anonymous and HIV prevalence among the suspected are key indexes of the national HIV surveillance in Korea.
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.