4.2 Review

Risk-Based Screening Tools to Optimise HIV Testing Services: a Systematic Review

期刊

CURRENT HIV/AIDS REPORTS
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 154-165

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11904-022-00601-5

关键词

HIV; Testing; Screening tool

资金

  1. World Health Organization [USAID GHA-G-00-09-00003]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1177903]
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship [GNT1193955]
  4. CAUL
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1177903] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines the use of risk-based tools to diagnose individuals unaware of their HIV status. It suggests that risk-based tools may improve testing efficiency, particularly for identifying acute HIV infections among men who have sex with men. However, there is a lack of systematic reviews synthesizing these studies.
Purpose of review Effective ways to diagnose the remaining people living with HIV who do not know their status are a global priority. We reviewed the use of risk-based tools, a set of criteria to identify individuals who would not otherwise be tested (screen in) or excluded people from testing (screen out). Recent findings Recent studies suggest that there may be value in risk-based tools to improve testing efficiency (i.e. identifying those who need to be tested). However, there has not been any systematic reviews to synthesize these studies. We identified 18,238 citations, and 71 were included. The risk-based tools identified were most commonly from high-income (51%) and low HIV (<5%) prevalence countries (73%). The majority were for screening in (70%), with the highest performance tools related to identifying MSM with acute HIV. Screening in tools may be helpful in settings where it is not feasible or recommended to offer testing routinely. Caution is needed for screening out tools, where there is a trade-off between reducing costs of testing with missing cases of people living with HIV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据