ArticleAIDS (London, England)2020
Use of viral load to improve survey estimates of known HIV-positive status and antiretroviral treatment coverage.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Men missing from the HIV care continuum in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022Pooled it
- Non-disclosure of Known HIV Status among People Living with HIV in the Mozambique Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (INSIDA 2021).AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare alternative methods of adjusting self-reported knowledge of HIV-positive status and antiretroviral (ARV) therapy use based on undetectable viral load (UVL) and ARV detection in blood.
designPost hoc analysis of nationally representative household survey to compare alternative biomarker-based adjustments to population HIV indicators.
methodsWe reclassified HIV-positive participants aged 15-64 years in the 2012 Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey (KAIS) who were unaware of their HIV-positive status by self-report as aware and on antiretroviral treatment if either ARVs were detected or viral load was undetectable (<550 copies/ml) on dried blood spots. We compared self-report to adjustments for ARV measurement, UVL, or both.
resultsTreatment coverage among all HIV-positive respondents increased from 31.8% for self-report to 42.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4-47.8] based on ARV detection alone, to 42.8% (95% CI 37.9-47.8) when ARV-adjusted, 46.2% (95% CI 41.3-51.1) when UVL-adjusted and 48.8% (95% CI 43.9-53.8) when adjusted for either ARV or UVL. Awareness of positive status increased from 46.9% for self-report to 56.2% (95% CI 50.7-61.6) when ARV-adjusted, 57.5% (95% CI 51.9-63.0) when UVL-adjusted, and 59.8% (95% CI 54.2-65.1) when adjusted for either ARV or UVL.
conclusionUndetectable viral load, which is routinely measured in surveys, may be a useful adjunct or alternative to ARV detection for adjusting survey estimates of knowledge of HIV status and antiretroviral treatment coverage.
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.