ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Small area analysis of HIV viral load suppression patterns in a high priority district (2012-2016), South Africa.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of the Scale-Up of Dolutegravir on Retention in Care, Risk of Developing Tuberculosis and Viral Load Suppression Among People Living With HIV: Analysis of Routine HIV Clinical Data in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (2019-23).Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Dolutegravir rollout for treatment of HIV with a focus on advanced disease and tuberculosis coinfection: findings from rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (2019-2023).AIDS research and therapy · 2025Article
- Integrated multi-month dispensing for HIV and hypertension in South Africa: A model of epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Geospatial and temporal mapping of detectable HIV-1 viral loads amid dolutegravir rollout in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.PLOS global public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, high viral load (VL) suppression rates are indicators of successful HIV treatment programs. Evaluation of these programmes at lower levels is likely to highlight variations that are masked at the provincial or national levels. This ecological study used routinely collected clinical and surveillance data on the HIV programme from 88 sampled Ekurhuleni wards. Between January 2012 and December 2016, 26 222 HIV VL tests for 2817 patients were conducted. We conducted a secondary analysis to determine the predictors of high VL suppression accounting for space and time random effects and estimate the impact of the national universal test-and-treat roll-out in 2016 and forecast VL suppression rates for five years post-2016.The proportion of VL suppression increased over the years: 2012 (47.8%: 95% confidence interval (CI): 36.7%-67.4%); 2013 (58.2%: 95%CI: 41.4%-79.6%); 2014 (62.7%: 95%CI: 45.2%-84.7%); 2015 (67.2%: 95%CI: 49.0%-89.9%) and 2016 (61.2%: 95%CI: 43.9%-83.0%). For every percentage increase in ART initiation, high VL suppression rates increased by 35% (RR: 1.345; 95% credible interval (Crl) 1.221-1.492) and for every percentage increase in women in the ward, high VL suppression increased by 44% (RR: 1.442; 95%CrI: 1.056-1.962). There was evidence of high and low clusters of viral load suppression observed at ward-level. The VL suppression rates in Ekurhuleni were lower than the 90% UNAIDS target. There was heterogeneity of high VL suppression across wards and study period. Targeted interventions strengthening ART initiation and retention in care are critical to achieving optimal VL suppression in Ekurhuleni and districts with similar profiles.
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.