SynthesisEuropean journal of public health2025
Blood-borne virus testing in European emergency departments: current evidence and service considerations.
Synthesis in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Viral hepatitis detection through emergency hospital departments in a Spanish region with high immigration: implications for elimination strategies.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Observational
- Application of machine-learning algorithms to identify the key determinants of risk for HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B in primary care settings.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Risk factors for late HIV diagnosis in England, 2015-2023.HIV medicine · 2026Article
- Efficiency of decentralized screening for hepatitis C in different healthcare settings: retrospective study over 6 years in southeastern Spain.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Opt-in and opt-out strategies for HIV testing-author's reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Innovative testing approaches are needed to meet global targets for the blood-borne viruses (BBVs) HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). We conducted a systematic review of BBV testing in emergency departments (EDs) in Europe to evaluate prevalence, effectiveness of ED testing and linkage to care (LTC). We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for articles on ED BBV testing published between January 2012 and July 2022. Studies conducted outside Europe or prior to 2012 were excluded owing to epidemiological and healthcare service variation, together with studies that did not report core parameters. Reference lists from included articles were manually searched. Seventeen original articles met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported on HIV testing only. ED prevalence: HIV Ab, 0.0%-1.1%; HBsAg, 0.2%-0.9%; and HCV RNA, 0.2%-3.9%. BBV testing uptake varied by policy and offer methodology: opt-out, provider-initiated: 9.7%-44.2%; electronic health record (EHR) modification: 52.1%-88.9%; and opt-in, provider-initiated: 3.9%-37.7%. LTC rates were 8.1%-100% and varied by BBV, generally highest for HIV and lowest for HCV. There was variable detail in outcome reporting and description of clinical LTC pathways. ED BBV testing in Europe is feasible and identifies high numbers of infections (including, where reported, new diagnoses and disengaged patients), often among marginalized populations who use open-access EDs for healthcare. Factors associated with higher levels of sustained testing uptake included opt-out testing (vs opt-in), EHR (vs provider-initiated) and integration of community services. We propose a toolkit of components necessary for a high-performing ED BBV testing programme.
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.