ArticlePloS one2020
Hepatitis C antibody screening and determinants of initial and duplicate screening in the baby boomer patients of six urban primary care clinics.
Article in PloS one, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the gap: Addressing disparities in hepatitis C screening, access to care, and treatment outcomes.World journal of hepatology · 2024Review
- Patient characteristics and neighborhood attributes associated with hepatitis C screening and positivity in Philadelphia.Preventive medicine reports · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated guidelines recommending universal, one-time hepatitis C virus screening for all individuals born between 1945 and 1965. Prior to the implementation of these guidelines, testing rates were inappropriately low, but unnecessary duplicate antibody testing was also problematic. In the era of increased efforts to screen "baby boomers", the prevalence and social determinants of initial and duplicate hepatitis C testing have not been well described.
methodsA hepatitis C screening program was implemented at six urban primary care clinics affiliated with Drexel University College of Medicine. Data was collected regarding the screening patterns in these clinics. Annual screening rates for the program were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association of demographic variables and the outcomes of subjects having ever been tested and subjects having received duplicate testing.
resultsFollowing the implementation of the program, the screening rate increased from 16% in the first year of analysis to 82% in the final year of analysis. Of the 6,717 patients screened, 1,207 had duplicate testing, of which 14% had inappropriate duplicate antibody screening. African Americans and Asian patients had a higher odds of being screened. Patients with public insurance had a higher odds of duplicate screening.
conclusionsIn the setting of an aggressive hepatitis C screening program, high testing rates may be attained in a target population. However, inappropriate duplicate antibody testing rates may be high, which may be a burden in resource-limited settings.
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.