ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2021
Targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Better Screen for Blood-Borne Viruses, Specifically HIV, in Hospital Emergency Departments: French and European Perspectives.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Women with Suicidal Ideation, Substance Use Disorder, or Intimate Partner Violence in the Emergency Department: Retrospective Analysis of Contraceptive Documentation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Implementation of delirium screening in the emergency department: A qualitative study with early adopters.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- Understanding Individual Barriers to HIV Testing Among Undergraduate University Students: Results From a Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite considerable improvement in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) knowledge and treatment in the last 3 decades, the overall number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) is still rising with up to one quarter being unaware of their HIV status. Early HIV diagnosis and treatment prolongs life, reduces transmission, improves quality of life, and is a cost-effective public health intervention. The emergency department (ED) sees a large number of patients from marginalized and traditionally underserved populations in whom HIV is known to be more prevalent and who may not attend traditional services because of either cultural reasons or because of a chaotic lifestyle. This article discusses the two main approaches to screening; 'Opt-out' screening offers testing routinely in all clinical settings, and 'Targeted' screening offers testing to individuals presenting with indicator conditions. There are many studies of 'Opt-out' ED HIV screening in urban areas of high-HIV prevalence. However, little is known about the effectiveness of 'targeted' HIV screening, especially in areas of low prevalence. This review discusses the background to HIV screening in the ED and reviews the evidence around 'targeted' HIV screening in adult EDs in different HIV prevalence settings, concluding that targeted HIV screening at the ED can be impactful, cost-effective, and well accepted in the ED population, but its long-term implementation requires extra funding and increased staffing resource limiting its application in low resource setting. Despite most evidence being from areas of high-HIV prevalence, targeted screening might also be appropriate in low-HIV prevalence areas.
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.