ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2020
The Potential Impact of One-Time Routine HIV Screening on Prevention and Clinical Outcomes in the United States: A Model-Based Analysis.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiological yield and cost-effectiveness of non-targeted community HIV screening in a low-prevalence district: a prospective quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A Closer Look at the Perceived Factors Contributing To Late HIV Diagnoses: A Qualitative Study among People with HIV.AIDS and behavior · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUS guidelines recommend routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening of all adults and adolescents at least once. The population-level impact of this strategy is unclear and will vary across the country.
methodsWe constructed a static linear model to estimate the optimal ages and incremental impact of adding 1-time routine HIV screening to risk-based, prenatal, symptom-based, and partner notification testing. Using surveillance data and published studies, we parameterized the model at the national level and for 2 settings representing subnational variability in the rates and distribution of infection: King County, WA and Philadelphia County, PA. Screening strategies were evaluated in terms of the percent of tests that result in new diagnoses (test positivity), cumulative person-years of undiagnosed infection, and the number of symptomatic HIV/acquired immune deficiency syndrome cases.
resultsDepending on the frequency of risk-based screening, routine screening test positivity was maximized at ages 30 to 34 years in the national model. The optimal age for routine screening was higher in a setting with a lower proportion of cases among men who have sex with men. Across settings, routine screening resulted in incremental reductions of 3% to 8% in years of undiagnosed infection and 3% to 11% in symptomatic cases, compared with reductions of 36% to 69% and 41% to 76% attributable to risk-based screening.
conclusionsAlthough routine HIV screening may contribute meaningfully to increased case detection in persons not captured by targeted testing programs in some settings, this strategy will have a limited impact on population-level outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of a multipronged testing strategy with continued investment in risk-based screening programs.
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.