ArticleAIDS care2021
Difference in HIV prevalence by testing venue: results from population level survey in Uganda.
Article in AIDS care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of HIV in slums area: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Model-based small area estimation methods and precise district-level HIV prevalence estimates in Uganda.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Growing demand for use of Health Facility (HF) HIV testing data, in addition to other testing data to obtain district level HIV prevalence requires understanding the comparability of these various sources. We analysed the 2011 Uganda AIDS indicator survey data to assess: the proportion of people tested for HIV across Uganda by venue of testing; HIV prevalence ratio for those tested in a HF compared to those tested in community setting; [Katz, D., Baptista, J., Azen, S. P., & Pike, M. C. (1978). Obtaining confidence intervals for the risk ratio in cohort studies. International Biometric Society, 34(3), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530610] and factors associated with HIV positivity in each subgroup. Of the 11,685 individuals, 8978 (77.1%) had ever tested for HIV in a HF. Fifty nine per cent tested in a HF in the 12 months preceding the survey (female: 5507, 72.7% versus male: 1413, 34.9%). HIV prevalence ratio was 1.8 times among those tested in a HF compared to those tested at community setting (10.9% [95% CI: 10.0-11.7] versus 6.2% [95% CI: 5.4-7.0]). Among HF testers, older age group, previously married and having no sexual partner was associated with significantly higher HIV prevalence. Using facility testing data for planning and decisions should take into consideration the elevated and varying HIV prevalence among individuals accessing HIV testing services at HFs as well as differences in their social-demographic characteristics.
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.