ArticleAIDS and behavior2022
Screening Adults for HIV Testing in the Outpatient Department: An Assessment of Tool Performance in Malawi.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning to improve HIV screening using routine data in Kenya.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Accelerating HIV and AIDS services delivery in Kigoma region, Tanzania.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Article
- Optimising the adult HIV testing services screening tool to predict positivity yield in Zimbabwe, 2022.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Little is known about screening tools for adults in high HIV burden contexts. We use exit survey data collected at outpatient departments in Malawi (n = 1038) to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of screening tools that include questions about sexual behavior and use of health services. We compare a full tool (seven relevant questions) to a reduced tool (five questions, excluding sexual behavior measures) and to standard of care (two questions, never tested for HIV or tested > 12 months ago, or seeking care for suspected STI). Suspect STI and ≥ 3 sexual partners were associated with HIV positivity, but had weak sensitivity and specificity. The full tool (using the optimal cutoff score of ≥ 3) would achieve 55.6% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for HIV positivity; the reduced tool (optimal cutoff score ≥ 2) would achieve 59.3% sensitivity and 68.5% specificity; and standard of care 77.8% sensitivity and 47.8% specificity. Screening tools for HIV testing in outpatient departments do not offer clear advantages over standard of care.
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.