ArticleStatistics in biosciences2020
Comparison of HIV prevalence among antenatal clinic attendees estimated from routine testing and unlinked anonymous testing.
Article in Statistics in biosciences, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triangulation of Routine Antenatal HIV Prevalence Data and Adjusted HIV Estimates in Mozambique.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2024Article
- A Unified Approach for Outliers and Influential Data Detection - The Value of Information in Retrospect.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2022Article
- Comparison of prevention of parent-to-child HIV transmission programme & national biennial HIV sentinel surveillance data for tracking HIV epidemic in India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Introduction to Special Issue on 'Statistical Methods for HIV/AIDS Research'.Statistics in biosciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In 2015, WHO and UNAIDS released new guidance recommending that countries transition from conducting antenatal clinic (ANC) unlinked anonymous testing (ANC-UAT) for tracking HIV prevalence trends among pregnant women to using ANC routine testing (ANC-RT) data, which are more consistent and economic to collect. This transition could pose challenges for distinguishing whether changes in observed prevalence are due to a change in underlying population prevalence or due to a change in the testing approach. We compared the HIV prevalence measured from ANC-UAT and ANCRT in 15 countries that had both data sources in overlapping years. We used linear mixed-e effects model (LMM) to estimate the RT-to-UAT calibration parameter as well as other unobserved quantities. We summarized the results at different levels of aggregation (e.g., country, urban, rural, and province). Based on our analysis, the HIV prevalence measured by ANC-UAT and ANC-RT data are consistent in most countries. Therefore, if large discrepancy is observed between ANC-UAT and ANC-RT at the same location, we recommend that people should be cautious and investigate the reason. For countries that lack information to estimate the calibration parameter, we propose an informative prior distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.2 for the RT-to-UAT calibration parameter.
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.