ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Optimising the adult HIV testing services screening tool to predict positivity yield in Zimbabwe, 2022.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted HIV testing modalities in Zimbabwe: Achieving effectiveness through a revised model.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
- Integrating status-neutral and targeted HIV testing in Zimbabwe: A complementary strategy.PloS one · 2025Article
- Risk Screening Tools Could Potentially Miss HIV-Positive Individuals Who Seek Testing Services: A Secondary Program Data Analysis on the Performance Characteristics of an Adolescent and Adult HIV Risk Screening Tool in Uganda.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HIV positivity yield declined against increasing testing volumes in Zimbabwe, from 20% (1.65 million tests) in 2011 to 6% (3 million tests) in 2018. A screening tool was introduced to aid testers to identify clients likely to obtain a positive diagnosis of HIV. Consequently, testing volumes declined to 2.3 million in 2019 but positivity declined to 5% prompting the evaluation and validation of the tool to improve its precision in predicting positivity yield. A cross-sectional study was conducted. Sixty-four sites were randomly selected where all reporting clients (18+ years) were screened and tested for HIV. Participant responses and test outcomes were documented and uploaded to excel. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the performance of individual, combination questions and screening criteria to achieve >/ = 90% sensitivity for a new screening tool. We evaluated 13 questions among 7,825 participants and obtained 95.7% overall sensitivity, ranging from 3.9% [(95%CI:2.5,5.9) sharing sharp objects] to 86.8% [(95%CI:83.8,89.5) self-perception of risk] for individual questions. A 5-question tool was developed and validated among 2,116 participants. The best combination (self-perception of risk, partner tested positive, history of ill health, last tested >/ = 3months and symptoms of an STI) scored 94.1% (95%CI:89.4,97.1) sensitivity, 18% reduction in testing volumes and 11 Number Needed to Test (NNT). A screening in criteria that combine previously testing >/ = 3 months with a yes to any of the 4 remaining questions was analysed and sensitivity ranged from 89.9% (95%CI:84.4,94.0) for last tested >/ = 3months and sexual partner positive, to 93.5% (95%CI:88.7,96.7) for last tested >/ = 3months and self-perceived risk We successfully developed, evaluated and validated an HIV screening tool. High sensitivity and the fifth reduction in testing volume were acceptable attributes to enhance testing efficiency and effective limited resource utilisation. Screened out clients will be identified through frequent screening and self-testing options.
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.