English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-prevalent countries, most HBV-infected persons are unaware of their status. We aimed to evaluate whether (i) previous HBV-testing, (ii) physicians decision to screen, and (iii) CDC's recommendations identified infected individuals and which risk-factor groups needing testing.    Methods  During a mass, multi-center HBV-screening study from September 2010-August 2011, 3929 participants were screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), anti-HBs and anti-Hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBcAb). Questions on HBV risk-factors and testing practices were asked to participants, while participants' eligibility for HBV-testing was asked to study medical professionals.    Results  85 (2.2%) participants were HBsAg-positive, while 659 (16.8%) had either resolved HBV infection or isolated anti-HBcAb. When comparing practices, HBV-testing was more likely to occur in HBV-infected participants if Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations were used (Sensitivity = 100%, 95%CI: 95.8–100) than physicians' discretion (Sensitivity = 87.1%, 95%CI: 78.0–93.4) or previous HBV-test (Sensitivity = 36.5%, 95%CI: 26.3–47.6) (p<0.0001). Nevertheless, many non-infected individuals would still have been screened using CDC-recommendations (Specificity = 31.1%, 95%CI: 29.6–32.6). Using multivariable logistic regression, HBsAg-positive status was significantly associated with the following: males, originating from high HBV-endemic region, contact with HBV-infected individual, without national healthcare, and intravenous-drug user (IDU). Of these risk-factors, physician's discretion for testing HBV was not significantly associated with participants' geographical origin or IDU.    Conclusions  Missed opportunities of HBV-screening are largely due to underestimating country of origin as a risk-factor. Applying CDC-recommendations could improve HBV-screening, but with the disadvantage of many tests. Further development of HBV-testing strategies is necessary, especially before severe disease occurs.

Current State of and Needs for Hepatitis B Screening: Results of a Large Screening Study in a Low-Prevalent, Metropolitan Region