SynthesisAIDS (London, England)2026
A systematic review of models used to estimate undiagnosed HIV prevalence in high-income low-prevalence countries and territories.
Synthesis in AIDS (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEstimating undiagnosed HIV prevalence facilitates planning epidemic responses, and monitoring progress towards UNAIDS and national targets. We undertook a systematic review to identify models used to estimate undiagnosed HIV prevalence in overall populations in high-income low-HIV-prevalence countries and territories to inform model selection in New Zealand.
methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to 5 March 2025. Two authors independently reviewed studies with conflicts resolved by a third. We assessed study quality against five key characteristics of good modelling practice. We undertook a grey literature search to identify modelling in HIV surveillance or monitoring reports.
resultsWe identified 2147 unique citations, with 119 full text studies retrieved and 48 included. Forty-six studies described modelling undiagnosed HIV prevalence in 23 countries and territories, a further two for multiple countries. The most common methods used CD4 + back-calculation, with the ECDC model most frequently used (10 studies), followed by a clinical stage-based back-calculation model, a CD4 + depletion model and the Spectrum CSAVR model (eight, four and three studies, respectively). Almost all studies noted a full mathematical model description, included parameters, validation and uncertainty estimates. Only five articles estimated undiagnosed HIV by ethnicity, but estimates by gender and exposure were common.
conclusionCD4 + back-calculation models, notably the online accessible ECDC model, have been most commonly used. These are well suited to surveillance systems like New Zealand's, which collect demographic and exposure details and CD4 + cell counts at HIV diagnosis, but limited exposure group size and seroprevalence information.
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.