ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluation of accuracy and performance of self-reported HIV and antiretroviral therapy status in the Nigeria AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (2018).
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing HIV drug resistance in cases of vertical transmission in the VESTED randomized antiretroviral treatment trial.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2024Trial
- Discordance Between Biomarker-Confirmed Antiretroviral Therapy and Self-Reported HIV Status Among People Living with HIV in Zambia and South Africa: A Secondary Analysis of HPTN 071 (PopART).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Prevalence and determinants of being out-of-care among HIV-positive young people aged 15-24 years in Mozambique: findings from the 2021 population-based HIV impact assessment survey.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Non-disclosure of Known HIV Status among People Living with HIV in the Mozambique Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (INSIDA 2021).AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Principal component analysis of the Serological response to Plasmodium Falciparum using a Multiplex bead-based assay in Nigeria.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- People Who Self-Reported Testing HIV-Positive but Tested HIV-Negative: A Multi-Country Puzzle of Data, Serology, and Ethics, 2015-2021.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Brief Report: Self-Reported HIV-Positive Status but Subsequent HIV-Negative Test Results in Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment Survey Participants-11 Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2015-2018.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 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
24 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData on awareness of HIV status among people living with HIV (PLHIV) are critical to estimating progress toward epidemic control. To ascertain the accuracy of self-reported HIV status and antiretroviral drug (ARV) use in the Nigeria HIV/AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS), we compared self-reported HIV status with HIV rapid diagnostic test (RDT) results and self-reported ARV use with detectable blood ARV levels.
methodsOn the basis of responses and test results, participants were categorized by HIV status and ARV use. Self-reported HIV status and ARV use performance characteristics were determined by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Proportions and other analyses were weighted to account for complex survey design.
resultsDuring NAIIS, 186,405 participants consented for interview out of which 58,646 reported knowing their HIV status. Of the 959 (weighted, 1.5%) who self-reported being HIV-positive, 849 (92.1%) tested HIV positive and 64 (7.9%) tested HIV negative via RDT and polymerase chain reaction test for discordant positive results. Of the 849 who tested HIV positive, 743 (89.8%) reported using ARV and 72 (10.2%) reported not using ARV. Of 57,687 who self-reported being HIV negative, 686 (1.2%) tested HIV positive via RDT, with ARV biomarkers detected among 195 (25.1%). ARV was detected among 94.5% of those who self-reported using ARV and among 42.0% of those who self-reported not using ARV. Overall, self-reported HIV status had sensitivity of 52.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.4%-56.0%) with specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.8%-99.9%). Self-reported ARV use had sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI: 93.6%-96.7%) and specificity of 54.5% (95% CI: 48.8%-70.7%).
conclusionsSelf-reported HIV status and ARV use screening tests were found to be low-validity measures during NAIIS. Laboratory tests to confirm self-reported information may be necessary to determine accurate HIV and clinical status for HIV studies in Nigeria.
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.