ArticleInternational journal of STD & AIDS2021
Automated STI/HIV risk assessments: Testing an online clinical algorithm in Ottawa, Canada.
Article in International journal of STD & AIDS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should we still treat asymptomaticSexually transmitted infections · 2026Article
- Developing and validating a Bayesian clinical risk prediction model for three sexually transmitted infections in key populations from two Canadian provinces.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Targeted HIV Self-Testing Identifies Persons with Undiagnosed HIV and Active Engagement Links them to Care: The GetaKit Study.AIDS and behavior · 2024Article
- Real world outcomes of distributing Lucira Check-It® COVID self-tests in Ontario, Canada: the GetaKit COVID study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Effectiveness of online HIV treatment services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Health care science · 2023Article
- First-time testers in the GetaKit study: conceptualizing new paths to care for gbMSM.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- HIV self-testing in cis women in Canada: The GetaKit study.Women's health (London, England)Observational
- Asynchronous Online Platforms Can Reduce Healthcare Costs for STI and HIV Testing: Evaluating GetaKit.ca in Ontario, Canada.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Comparing the Uptake of HIV Self-Testing to HIV Serology: Findings from GetaKit-A Prospective Open Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the ongoing transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV, many people became unable to access testing due to COVID-19. To address this, we created a mail-out HIV self-test kit, which could be delivered without restrictions in our region. The uptake and feedback from this project made us realize that comprehensive STI testing was being sought. To ensure testing occurred correctly-that is, it would be targeted at the persons most affected by STIs/HIV-we automated clinical decision-making. We built this model based on a 2-by-2 matrix that plots the risk of STI/HIV transmission and risk of STI/HIV exposure. The intercept of these two measures classifies a person as low, medium, or high risk. After automating this logic, 16 expert clinicians in STI/HIV care tested this system with over 400 test patient cases and refined the algorithm until it yielded the exact outcomes that these clinicians would offer patients based on guidelines. Findings of interest are that the scale of the
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.