ReviewInfectious diseases and therapy2026
How to Better Screen for Blood-Borne Viruses, Specifically HIV, in Hospital Emergency Departments: French and European Perspectives.
Review in Infectious diseases and therapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospital emergency departments (EDs) represent an acceptable and economically viable source of data on screening for blood-borne viruses (BBVs). In EDs in France, BBV screening is not based on a universal 'opt-out' policy (i.e. where all patients are informed that they will be screened unless they decline). Screening for BBVs is often not systematically offered when clinically appropriate and may have several challenges when it is offered. Nonetheless, opt-out BBV screening is useful in varied urban populations where BBV prevalence is high, although further evaluations of patient, caregiver and provider acceptability, rates of repeat versus new diagnoses, linkage to care (LTC) and cost benefits are warranted. Timely LTC and the retention of patients within care are important for enhancing clinical outcomes and preventing BBV transmission. However, timely LTC may be adversely affected by social deprivation, stigma associated with a BBV diagnosis and poor healthcare organisation. Consistent political commitment and relevant resource allocation are required to target any inequalities in healthcare access. Overall, in France and Europe, universal ED opt-out BBV screening strategies are appropriate for reducing missed opportunities for the early diagnosis of BBV infections. These strategies should be more widely implemented in EDs with high BBV prevalence, together with targeted community-based BBV screening in high-risk and vulnerable populations, so that overall BBV screening remains cost-effective. Reducing BBV-related stigma and discrimination and other barriers to healthcare access is imperative, as is the ongoing need to reinforce and evaluate timely LTC after positive opt-out BBV screening in EDs.
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.