ArticleAIDS and behavior2026
Acceptability and Usability of Blood-Based and Oral Fluid HCV Self-Testing Among Men-Who-Have-Sex-with-Men and Transgender Women on PrEP.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatitis C virus self-testing (HCVST) has emerged as a potential strategy to expand testing among key populations. We assessed the feasibility of HCVST in cisgender men-who-have-sex-with-men (cis-MSM) and transgender women (TGW) on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This cross-sectional study included cis-MSM or TGW attending a PrEP consultation in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Participants performed HCVST using blood-based and oral-fluid kits on the same day under observation. Difficulties, errors and assistance during HCVST were recorded. Re-reading and re-testing concordance [Kappa(k)] and values/preferences were assessed. A total of 250 participants (88% cis-MSM, age = 34 [IQR,28-41] years, 42% with high education level) were included. The main steps where participants requested assistance (95%CI) for blood-based HCVST were to add buffer [35.6%(29.9-41.8)] and to collect blood sample with the dropper [34.0%(28.4-40.1)]. The main error during oral fluid HCVST was incorrect collection of oral fluid [29.6% (95%CI,24.2-35.6)]. A total of 62.4% (95%CI,56.2-68.2) and 28.8% (95%CI,23.5-34.8) participants needed assistance in at least one step of blood-based and oral fluid HCVST, respectively. Lower education level was associated with higher odds of needing assistance for blood-based HCVST [aOR = 2.07 (95%CI,1.99-3.59),p = 0.009]. Re-reading and re-testing k-indexes were 0.92 and 0.89 for blood-based, and 1.00 and 0.75 for oral fluid HCVST, respectively. More than 95% of people felt safe; would repeat or would recommend HCVST. A total of 46.4% (95%CI,40.3-52.6) preferred oral fluid versus 36.4% (95%CI,30.6-42.6) who preferred blood-based. A relatively high proportion of participants needed assistance, especially for blood-based HCVST. Despite these challenges, high re-reading and re-testing agreements were observed and HCVST was well-accepted.
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.