ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
Hepatitis C screening strategies and linkage-to-care approaches in U.S. emergency departments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains a public health concern in the U.S. Emergency departments are pivotal for the identification of undiagnosed HCV infections. This study seeks to estimate outcomes across hepatitis C virus antibody screening strategies and linkage-to-care approaches implemented in U.S. emergency departments (EDs). Methods: We searched online databases (e.g., Embase, PubMed) for studies published between January 2014 and December 2024 evaluating HCV care cascade outcomes in ED settings. When necessary, we surveyed corresponding authors to clarify patient navigation strategies. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled percentages with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The 21 included studies represented 235,725 individuals. Pooled HCV screening was estimated at 45% and higher for Baby Boomer-based targeted screening (54%) and lower for risk-based targeted screening (38%) than for universal screening (51%). Independent pooled estimates of treatment initiation and cure were higher among alternative linkage-to-care approaches (21% vs 10% and 14% vs 6%, respectively) than among those relying on community health workers. Conclusions: HCV screening and linkage-to-care outcomes in ED settings remain suboptimal. Alternative linkage-to-care approaches to patient navigators demonstrate improved linkage-to-care and cure rates. Strengthening linkage-to-care programs along with screening initiatives in U.S. EDs may enhance progress toward HCV elimination.
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.