ArticlePloS one2022
Graphical analysis of guideline adherence to detect systemwide anomalies in HIV diagnostic testing.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalyses of electronic medical databases often compare clinical practice to guideline recommendations. These analyses have a limited ability to simultaneously evaluate many interconnected medical decisions. We aimed to overcome this limitation with an alternative method and apply it to the diagnostic workup of HIV, where misuse can contribute to HIV transmission, delay care, and incur unnecessary costs.
methodsWe used graph theory to assess patterns of HIV diagnostic testing in a national healthcare system. We modeled the HIV diagnostic testing guidelines as a directed graph. Each node in the graph represented a test, and the edges pointed from one test to the next in chronological order. We then graphed each patient's HIV testing. This set of patient-level graphs was aggregated into a single graph. Finally, we compared the two graphs, the first representing the recommended approach to HIV diagnostic testing and the second representing the observed patterns of HIV testing, to assess for clinical practice deviations.
resultsThe HIV diagnostic testing of 1.643 million patients provided 8.790 million HIV diagnostic test results for analysis. Significant deviations from recommended practice were found including the use of HIV resistance tests (n = 3,007) and HIV nucleic acid tests (n = 16,567) instead of the recommended HIV screen.
conclusionsWe developed a method that modeled a complex medical scenario as a directed graph. When applied to HIV diagnostic testing, we identified deviations in clinical practice from guideline recommendations. The model enabled the identification of intervention targets and prompted systemwide policy changes to enhance HIV detection.
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.