ArticleBMC public health2023
Evaluating HIV Rapid/Point of Care Testing among Risk Factor Groups in Ontario, 2011 to 2018.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- HIV self-testing in cis women in Canada: The GetaKit study.Women's health (London, England)Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn 2014, Ontario's Point-of-Care (POC) test providers were advised to focus efforts on provincially defined priority populations who experience a greater risk of HIV. Our objective was to describe the POC program before, during and after this change, including tester characteristics, follow-up testing results, positive predictive value (PPV) over time, and trends and characteristics of those with reactive test results without a confirmatory serological specimen.
methodsTest-level data of POC screening and confirmatory results were extracted from the Public Health Ontario HIV Datamart. Final test results were defined based on results of the confirmatory blood sample, or the POC test for "non-reactive" tests. Testing volumes, percent of total tests, percent positivity and PPV were calculated overall, annually, and by exposure group.
resultsOverall testing volumes decreased by 39.8% between 2014 and 2018. The majority of confirmed positive tests were in the men who have sex with men (MSM) exposure category, followed by HIV-endemic and heterosexual - no identified risk (heterosexual-NIR). Overall percent positivity decreased from 0.59% in 2011 to 0.42% in 2015 (change of 0.17%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.31%), increasing to 0.69% in 2018 (change of 0.27%, 95% CI 0.20% to 0.34%). Increases in percent positivity corresponded with a decrease in the overall proportion of tests conducted in low-risk populations. When compared to the heterosexual-NIR category, PPV was significantly higher for men who have sex with men - people who use injection drugs (MSM-PWID) (52.7% compared to 100%, P < .001), MSM (52.7% compared to 95.4%, P < .001), HIV-endemic (52.7% compared to 91.5%, P < .001), heterosexual - partner with identified risk (heterosexual-PIR) (52.7% compared to 77.3%, P = .042), and people who use injection drugs (PWID) (52.7% compared to 81.3%, P = 0.007). A total of 13.5% of reactive POC results did not have a serological sample submitted.
conclusionsTargeted testing towards populations at higher risk of HIV improved the overall test performance characteristics of Ontario's POC testing program. While not unexpected, the large discrepancies between PPV in higher-risk, compared to lower-risk populations, suggests the need for greater awareness and messaging of the likelihood of false positive test results in different populations.
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.