ArticleJournal of community health2020
Evaluation of Rapid Testing Algorithms for Venue-based Anonymous HIV Testing among Non-HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS), 2017.
Article in Journal of community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatitis C virus infection and co-infection with HIV among persons who inject drugs in 10 U.S. cities-National HIV Behavioral Surveillance, 2018.The International journal on drug policy · 2025Article
- Five point initiative: a community-informed bundled implementation strategy to address HIV in Black communities.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Performance of HIV rapid testing algorithm in Nigeria: Findings from a household-based Nigeria HIV/AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS).PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- The feasibility of modified HIV and antiretroviral drug testing using self-collected dried blood spots from men who have sex with men.BMC infectious diseases · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HIV rapid testing algorithms (RTAs) using any two orthogonal rapid tests (RTs) allow for on-site confirmation of infection. RTs vary in performance characteristics therefore the selection of RTs in an algorithm may affect identification of infection, particularly if acute. National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) assessed RTAs among men who have sex with men recruited using anonymous venue-based sampling. Different algorithms were evaluated among participants who self-reported never having received a positive HIV test result prior to the interview. NHBS project areas performed sequential or parallel RTs using whole blood. Participants with at least one reactive RT were offered anonymous linkage to care and provided a dried blood spot (DBS) for testing at CDC. Discordant results (RT-1 reactive/RT-2 non-reactive) were tested at CDC with lab protocols modified for DBS. DBS were also tested for HIV-1 RNA (VL) and antiretroviral (ARV) drug levels. Of 6500 RTAs, 238 were RT-1 reactive; of those, 97.1% (231/238) had concordant results (RT-1/RT-2 reactive) and 2.9% (7/238) had discordant results. Five DBS associated with discordant results were available for confirmation at CDC. Four had non-reactive confirmatory test results that implied RT-1 false reactivity; one had ambiguous confirmatory test results which was non-reactive in further testing. Regardless of order and type of RT used, RTAs demonstrated high concordant results in the population surveyed. Additional laboratory testing on DBS following discordant results confirmed no infection. Implementing RTAs in the context of anonymous venue-based HIV testing could be an option when laboratory follow-up is not practicable.
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.