ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2022
Emergency department versus community screening on hepatitis C follow-up care.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- The Many Faces of Dengue Infection: Dengue Infection Masquerading as Acute Airway Edema.Cureus · 2026Article
- Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of Liver Disease Staging in Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Microsimulation Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Delays in fibrosis staging reduce the likelihood of achieving hepatitis C treatment and cure.Infectious diseases (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEmergency department (ED) hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening programs are proliferating, and it is unknown whether EDs are more effective than traditional community screening at promoting HCV follow-up care. The objective of this study was to investigate whether patients screened HCV seropositive (HCV+) in the ED are linked to care and retained in treatment more successfully than patients screened HCV+ in the community.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed including patients screened HCV+ at twelve screening facilities in New Orleans, LA from March 1, 2015 to July 31, 2017. Treatment outcomes, including retention and time to follow-up care, were assessed using the HCV continuum of care model.
resultsED patients (n = 3008) were significantly more likely to achieve RNA confirmation (aRR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.54-2.37), initiate HCV therapy (aRR = 2.23 [1.76-2.83]), complete HCV therapy (aRR = 1.77 [1.40-2.24]), and achieve HCV functional cure (aRR = 2.80 [1.09-7.23]) compared to community-screened patients (n = 322). ED screening was associated with decreased likelihood of fibrosis staging (aRR = 0.65 [0.51-0.82]) and no difference in linkage to specialty care (aRR = 1.03 [0.69-1.53]). In time to follow up, RNA confirmation occurred at faster rates in the ED (aHR = 2.26 [1.86-2.72]), although these patients completed fibrosis staging at slower rates (aHR = 0.49 [0.38-0.63]) than community patients.
conclusionsCompared to community screening, HCV screening in the ED was associated with higher rates of disease confirmation, treatment initiation/completion, and cure. Our findings provide new evidence that EDs may be the most effective setting to screen patients for HCV to promote follow-up 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.