ArticleAIDS and behavior2024
Examining Concordance Between Self-Report and Biomedical HIV Viral Load Data: A Scoping Review.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-reported HIV viral load is reliable and not affected by adverse lived experiences of women living with HIV in British Columbia.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of dried blood spot (DBS) and plasma HIV-1 viral load measurements using Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan assay, Northwest Ethiopia.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Self-Collected Dried Blood Spot Specimens for Viral Load Monitoring among Rural Older People Living with HIV.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of HIV viral load based on laboratory results is the gold standard in HIV care and research. However, blood assay or accessing medical records is not always possible due to research or service contexts and constraints. Self-report of viral load test results expands data resources, is a convenient method of collecting data in both research and service settings, and is useful for HIV surveillance. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify existing literature on the validity of self-reported viral load data compared to blood assay or medical record review. We found that the existing literature is limited, with varied data collection methods, self-report measures, and study designs, as well as predictors of accuracy. Concordance between self-reported viral load and biomedical data varied across studies but appeared to be more consistent among samples recruited from clinical populations that reported engagement in HIV care. While it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the validity of self-reported viral load across existing studies, there is a need for a standardized measure and method of collection that can be utilized across diverse populations living with HIV.
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.