ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Sex differences in HIV testing among elders in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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.
- Article
- The trend analysis of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among the elderly aged 50 to 69 years from 1990 to 2030.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Impact of health system strengthening interventions on child survival in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElders (age 50+) HIV demographic (age and sex) data are essential to better understand their HIV service utilization and develop appropriate evidence-based responses and policies. Despite a significant prevalence rate of HIV and growing numbers of this population group, data are still scarce, and studies have neglected them in Sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this protocol is to outline the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather qualitative and quantitative data to critically examine sex differences in HIV testing among elders (age 50+) in Sub-Saharan Africa.
methodsThis protocol adheres to the PRISMA-P reporting guidelines. We will conduct a systematic database search to retrieve all observational and qualitative studies. Electronic search strategies will be developed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health, and CINAHL for studies reporting HIV data. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The search strategy will consist of free-text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Search terms for elders (50+) will include the following: "elders", "older adults", "aged", "geriatric" and "seniors". The primary outcome of interest is sex differences in the uptake of HIV counselling and testing (HCT). The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools. Screening, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias will be performed independently by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be conducted with studies that are compatible based on population and outcome. As it will be a systematic review, without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will present key evidence on sex differences in HIV testing among elders in Sub-Saharan Africa. The findings will be used to inform program developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to enhance sex disaggregated HIV data to improve access to HIV counselling and testing service for elders in Sub-Saharan Africa. The final manuscript will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020172737 .
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.