ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2020
Impact of Viral Load Monitoring on Retention and Viral Suppression: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of South Africa's National Laboratory Cohort.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aligning definitions with realities: a qualitative study on the complexities of measuring retention in HIV care in the global context.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Long-term HIV care outcomes under universal HIV treatment guidelines: A retrospective cohort study in 25 countries.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Viral load non-suppression among adolescents and youth living with HIV in South Africa.Southern African journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Time from treatment initiation to HIV viral suppression in public care facilities in Brazil: A nationwide linked databases cohort.PloS one · 2024Article
- HIV viral load testing and monitoring in Côte d'Ivoire: A survival analysis of viral load testing and suppression, and evaluation of adherence to national recommendations.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Cohort profile: the South African National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) National HIV Cohort.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Variation in HIV care and treatment outcomes by facility in South Africa, 2011-2015: A cohort study.PLoS medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
South African guidelines recommend repeat viral load testing within 6 months when human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral loads exceed 1,000 copies/mL. We assessed whether South African facilities follow viral load monitoring guidelines and whether guidelines improve HIV-related outcomes, using a regression discontinuity design in a national HIV cohort of 174,574 patients (2013-2015). We assessed whether patients with viral loads just above versus just below 1,000 copies/mL were more likely to receive repeat testing in 6 months, and we compared differences in clinic transfers, retention, and viral suppression. The majority (67%) of patients with viral loads of >1,000 copies/mL did not receive repeat testing within 6 months, and these patients were 8.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.2, 9.7) more likely to receive repeat testing compared with ≤1,000 copies/mL. Eligibility for repeat testing (>1,000 copies/mL) was associated with greater 12-month retention (risk difference = 2.9%, 95% CI: 0.6, 5.2) and combined suppression and retention (risk difference = 5.8%, 95% CI: 3.0, 8.6). Patients with viral loads of >1,000 copies/mL who actually received repeat testing were 85.2% more likely to be both retained and virally suppressed at 12 months (95% CI: 35.9, 100.0). Viral load monitoring might improve patient outcomes, but most patients with elevated viral loads do not receive monitoring within recommended timelines.
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.