Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962446›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Optimising the adult HIV testing services screening tool to predict positivity yield in Zimbabwe, 2022.

Hamufare Dumisani Mugauri, Joconiah Chirenda, Kudakwashe Takarinda, Owen Mugurungi, Getrude Ncube, Ishmael Chikondowa, Patrick Mantiziba, Blessing Mushangwe, Mufuta Tshimanga

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hamufare Dumisani MugauriDepartment of Primary Health-care Sciences, The University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4874-6381
Joconiah ChirendaDepartment of Primary Health-care Sciences, The University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2441-3304
Kudakwashe TakarindaOrganisation for Public Health Interventions and Development (OPHID), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2980-7735
Owen MugurungiMinistry of Health and Child Care, AIDS and TB Unit, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Getrude NcubeMinistry of Health and Child Care, AIDS and TB Unit, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ishmael ChikondowaMinistry of Health and Child Care, AIDS and TB Unit, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Patrick MantizibaClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2845-814X
Blessing MushangweZimbabwe Technical Assistance, Training and Education Center for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Mufuta TshimangaDepartment of Primary Health-care Sciences, The University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5525-3318
Ministry of Health and Child Welfare · ZWUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZWCentre for Sexual Health and HIV AIDS Research · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID36962446
PMCPMC10021692
OpenAlexW4283777906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read133
reference markers read2
identifiers read12
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.