Trial reportAIDS (London, England)2025
Implementing HIV teams sustainably improves HIV indicator condition testing rates in hospitals in the Netherlands: the #aware.hiv clinical trial.
Trial report in AIDS (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06900829 (#AWARE.HIV Europe), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
#AWARE.HIV Europe: Supporting Healthcare Professionals to Find Undiagnosed HIV in European Hospitals: An Effectiveness-implementation Trial.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Ending HIV transmission in Europe.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDevelop and validate a strategy to improve HIV testing rates using HIV teams.
designA prospective clinical trial was conducted from January 2020 to July 2023 in two Dutch university hospitals.
methodsThe intervention involved implementing HIV teams to provide peer awareness, education, and feedback to physicians treating patients ≥18 years newly diagnosed with HIV indicator conditions. The primary outcome was the HIV testing rate. Secondary outcomes included testing rates by specialty, HIV prevalence, and reasons for withholding testing.
resultsOf the 313 666 newly registered diagnoses, 2395 involved indicator conditions. The overall HIV testing rate of newly diagnosed HIV indicator conditions increased from 50.1% (222/443) preimplementation to 80.7% (1575/1952) postimplementation of HIV teams ( P < 0.001) with sustained improvement during the observation period (range 72.4-90.4%). The intervention was effective across physicians from all medical specialties. HIV prevalence among those tested was 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.1]. Peer feedback for 411 untested indicator conditions, resulted in 69 (16.3%) additional HIV tests. Failure to test frequently remained without reason (50.6%) or due to patient loss of follow-up (18.4%). Multivariate analysis indicated that women with indicator conditions were tested less often [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.79, P < 0.01], and indicator conditions without HIV testing recommendations in national guidelines were also less likely to be tested for HIV (aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.27-0.48, P < 0.01). For external validation, we implemented this intervention in a second hospital, where it also significantly increased the testing rate postimplementation of HIV teams.
conclusionImplementing HIV teams in hospitals is feasible, effective and leads to a sustained increase in HIV indicator condition-guided testing, supporting its broader adoption.
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.