ArticlePediatric emergency care2022
Comparison of Targeted and Routine Adolescent HIV Screening in a Pediatric Emergency Department.
Article in Pediatric emergency care, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Practices in United States Pediatric Emergency Departments.Pediatrics · 2025Article
- Implementation of adolescent HIV screening in two urban pediatric emergency departments in the United States.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pediatric Emergency Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Regarding Confidential Adolescent Care.Pediatric emergency care · 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
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of the study were (1) to compare targeted and routine HIV screening in a pediatric emergency department (PED) and (2) to compare provider documented HIV risk assessment with adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment conducted during the PED visit.
methodsThis prospective study ran concurrent to a PED routine HIV screening pilot. Adolescents could be tested for HIV by the PED provider per usual care (targeted testing); if not tested, they were approached for the routine screening pilot. A subset of adolescents completed a questionnaire on HIV risk. χ 2 analysis compared adolescents with targeted testing and routine screening. HIV-tested patients were asked if HIV risk was assessed; κ analysis compared this with documentation in the provider note.
resultsOver 4 months, 107 adolescents received targeted testing and 344 received routine screening. One 14-year-old patient tested positive by routine screening; this adolescent had 2 PED visits without targeted testing within 60 days. Compared with routine screening, adolescents with targeted testing were more likely female (82% vs 57%, P < 0.001), 16 years or older (71% vs 44%, P < 0.001), or had genitourinary/gynecologic concerns (48% vs 6%, P < 0.001). Adolescents with HIV risk factors were missed by targeted testing but received routine screening. Adolescents with documented HIV risk assessment were more likely to receive targeted testing. There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.61) between provider documentation and adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment.
conclusionsThere are gaps in PED HIV risk assessment and testing, which may miss opportunities to diagnose adolescent HIV. Routine HIV screening addresses these gaps and expands adolescent HIV testing in the PED.
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.