ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2022
Comparing Hepatitis C Virus Screening in Clinics Versus the Emergency Department.
Article in The western 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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Hepatitis B and C infections, and co-infections screening among patients attending a tertiary hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a retrospective database study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Screening Algorithm to Predict High-Risk Hepatitis C Infection.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- A pharmacist-led community-based survey study: Determining the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on actionable factors associated with worse cancer outcomes and cancer health disparities.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNew evidence suggests that emergency department (ED)-based infectious diseases screening programs have utility. We aimed to compare clinic-based and ED-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening programs within a single health system, to identify key differences in HCV antibody (Ab) positivity and chronic HCV, as well as population demographics.
methodsIn the clinic-based program, adults in the birth cohort (born 1945-1965) were screened for HCV. In the ED-based program, non-targeted HCV screening of all adults was conducted. We included patients screened between June 2019-June 2020. Patients were screened for anti-HCV Ab, and positive results were followed by HCV viral load (VL) testing. Our primary outcomes were seroprevalence of HCV Ab and HCV VL.
resultsThere were 1,296 and 12,778 patients screened for HCV in the clinics and the ED, respectively. In the clinic setting, 13 patients (1%) screened positive for HCV Ab and nine (69%) completed VL testing, which was positive in one patient (11%). In the ED, 1,053 patients (8%) screened positive for HCV Ab and 847 (80%) underwent reflex VL testing, which was positive in 381 patients (45%). In an ED birth cohort sub-analysis, Hepatitis C virus Ab seroprevalence was 15% (675/4521).
conclusionIn this study of patients in a single healthcare system, ED-based HCV screening was higher yield than clinic-based screening.
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.