ArticleBMC public health2025
A prospective multi-site study to evaluate the performance and usability of an oral fluid-based HIV self-test in Canada.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Feasibility and Usability of an mHealth App (mLab+) to Guide Users Through HIV and Syphilis Self-Testing: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlood and oral fluid-based HIV self-tests are important for reaching the undiagnosed living with HIV. The study objectives were to evaluate the oral fluid-based OraQuick® HIV Self-Test (HIV-ST) performance in comparison to laboratory reference testing; determine if laypersons can correctly perform the HIV-ST; document if intended users can successfully interpret pre-made contrived positive, negative, and invalid results; and document if intended users can understand the key messages in the product labeling.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled consenting adult intended users of HIV self-testing from six community health centres in four Canadian provinces between June 2022 and January 2024. Positive and negative agreement was determined by comparing the results of the HIV self-tests with the results of the laboratory-based "gold standard" Abbott Alinity HIV Antigen/Antibody Combo test. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize usability self-test procedure steps.
resultsOverall, 951 participants were recruited and consented with 911 available for all analyses. With respect to sociodemographics: 84% of participants were between 18-45 years of age, 73% had at least a college education, 48% were Cis-male, 45% were employed; and 26% identified as White, 23% as African, Caribbean or Black, 5% as Indigenous [First Nations, Métis or Inuit], 33% as Asian, and 6% as LatinX. Primary efficacy analysis on the 911 who completed HIV-ST revealed a single confirmed positive participant and a negative percent agreement of 100% (880/880, 95% CI: 99.9-100%) with the comparator method. For usability determination, the average success rate for "critical" steps for completing the test was 94.1%. Approximately 97% of participants found the instructions easy to follow and 98% of participants reported they would use the test again. Of the 465 participants who interpreted the strong positive, weak positive, negative, and invalid pre-made contrived results, the average of correct interpretations ranged from 59-97%
conclusionsA licensed oral fluid-based HIV self-test in Canada can present an accurate, easy-to-use, and less invasive alternative to blood-based HIV testing. The addition of an oral-fluid self-test along with the current licensed blood-based HIV self-test could help reach the undiagnosed with HIV in Canada and positively impact HIV testing rates overall by offering individuals a choice of self-testing devices.
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.