You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 14, Issue 11
  • HIV risk assessment tools for identifying individuals who could benefit from pre-exposure prophylaxis: a systematic review protocol

Article Text

Article menu
HIV/AIDS
Protocol
HIV risk assessment tools for identifying individuals who could benefit from pre-exposure prophylaxis: a systematic review protocol
  1. Myo Minn Oo1,2,
  2. Caley Shukalek3,
  3. Teruko Kishibe4,
  4. Mark Hull5,
  5. Darrell H S Tan1,2,6
  1. 1 Division of Infectious Diseases, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
  3. 3 University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  4. 4 Library Services, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5 BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Washington, Canada
  6. 6 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Myo Minn Oo; dr.myominnoo{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective, safe and acceptable intervention for preventing HIV infection. However, identifying individuals who could best benefit from PrEP remains a significant challenge. Existing HIV risk assessment tools vary in performance depending on context. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on their diagnostic performances to predict incident HIV infection.

Methods and analysis This protocol is informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Protocols. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases (January 1998–May 2024) for observational and relevant interventional studies assessing the diagnostic performance of HIV risk tools to predict incident HIV for PrEP eligibility. There will be no restrictions on study language or location. Two reviewers will conduct the search, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Studies. Standardised templates will be used in Covidence for data extraction. We will conduct a meta-analysis if appropriate, otherwise, a narrative review. We will use the PRISMA guidelines to guide reporting.

Ethics and dissemination of research Ethical approval is not required as data is publicly available. This review will inform updates to Canadian HIV PrEP guidelines and guide healthcare professionals in using HIV risk assessment tools for identifying PrEP candidates. Findings will be presented at guideline panel meetings and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conferences.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42024543975.

  • HIV and AIDS
  • Sexually Transmitted Disease
  • Systematic Review
  • Primary Prevention
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090565

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

    • This systematic review will address a global gap in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) guidelines by comprehensively synthesising evidence on the diagnostic characteristics of HIV risk assessment tools for PrEP eligibility.

    • The review will identify the most effective tools used across diverse settings and populations, evaluating their performance alongside potential risks and benefits.

    • This review’s findings will directly inform updates to Canadian HIV PrEP guidelines and further guide healthcare professionals worldwide seeking to use these tools for identifying suitable PrEP candidates.

    • This review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols guidelines with transparency regarding the methods and processes that will be used.

    • This review will focus exclusively on HIV risk tools for PrEP eligibility, excluding studies solely on optimising population-level HIV testing strategies.

    Background

    Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves the regular use of antiretroviral medications by HIV-negative persons for the purpose of reducing the risk of HIV acquisition.1–6 PrEP is a highly effective standard of care intervention for individuals at elevated risk of HIV acquisition (reducing the risk from sex by about 99% and from injecting drug use by at least 74%), yet it is underused as a prevention strategy.7–9 New HIV infections continue to rise among key populations in Canada and globally, signifying ongoing barriers to broader PrEP uptake.10

    Individuals often underestimate their risk of acquiring HIV. Even if they could greatly benefit from taking it, they may not seek out their healthcare providers for PrEP.11 12 National and regional guidelines for HIV PrEP exist, but effectively identifying people who could benefit most from PrEP remains a challenge for patients, clinicians and the healthcare system as a whole.13 14 This is, in part, a key reason why newer PrEP guidelines in the USA and elsewhere emphasize that people who self-identify as PrEP candidates should be prescribed it and should not be reliant on clinicians’ judgements regarding their risk.15 16

    However, simple and accurate HIV risk assessment tools can empower busy clinicians to identify potential PrEP users and integrate PrEP discussions into routine patient encounters.17 18

    Several risk assessment tools exist to help clinicians identify individuals at high HIV risk.19–24 These tools may be particularly helpful to front-line clinicians with only limited familiarity with HIV and related issues of sexual health and harm reduction.25 However, they have important limitations. The tools are often population- and context-specific and may therefore not be suitable for accurately assessing HIV risk in different clinical scenarios.26 Key performance characteristics such as sensitivity and specificity may change over time, even within the same population and geographic context, as the expansion of HIV treatment and other prevention tools changes the epidemiology of HIV and, hence, the risk of infection. Scoring and administration may also be tedious, restricting their suitability for busy clinical settings.27 Consequently, a systematic review of the literature is needed to evaluate these tools, their components and their performances across various populations and settings.

    Canadian guidelines on HIV PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) were first developed and published in 2017.28 These guidelines are currently in the process of revision, and an important clinical question to be addressed in the updated guideline relates to how clinicians should be advised to use these tools to assess patients for potential PrEP use. There has also been a notable gap in comprehensive, up-to-date evaluations of these tools’ performance across diverse demographic contexts and geographic settings, which may hinder optimal PrEP delivery and effectiveness. Hence, we are undertaking a systematic review to synthesise current global evidence on HIV risk assessment tools, their performance and validations in predicting HIV acquisition in any population. Specifically, this systematic review seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What clinical tools are available to identify individuals who could benefit from PrEP? (2) Do they accurately predict incident HIV infection? (3) What are their additional implementation characteristics?

    Our findings will inform the guideline panel’s recommendations on strategies for identifying individuals who could benefit from PrEP. To prevent duplication of reviews, a preliminary search of similar protocols or reviews was conducted between April and May 2024 in MEDLINE, Google Scholar and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases. No review protocol or systematic review on this topic published in the last decade was identified.

    Objectives

    Our primary objective is to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of HIV risk assessment tools in terms of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in predicting incident HIV infections in adults and/or adolescents for the purpose of prescribing PrEP.

    Secondary objectives are to describe the following characteristics of identified risk tools:

    1. Characteristics of the HIV risk tool (ie, number of items and type of questions);

    2. Settings where the tool is used (eg, sexually transmitted infections [STI] clinic, outpatients, primary health clinic and emergency department);

    3. External validation (ie, testing the performance of the tool in groups of individuals who are not the same as the development cohort or pilot testing);

    4. Methods that were used for developing and validating these tools.

    Methods

    This systematic review was designed to describe the HIV risk assessment tools, their implementation characteristics and performance to predict incident HIV infection. We plan to conduct this study between 1 May 2024 and 31 December 2024. This protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines (online supplemental file 1).29 Reporting of the synthesised findings will be informed by PRISMA guidelines.30 This protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO (registration number CRD42024543975). Important amendments to this protocol will be published along with the results of the systematic review.

    Supplemental material

    Eligibility criteria

    To be eligible for this review, studies will need to report on the operating characteristics of HIV risk assessment tools (eg, risk index and risk score) in HIV-negative individuals aged ≥12 years for predicting incident (primary outcome of interest) or prevalent (secondary outcome of interest) HIV infection. We anticipate that the bulk of such studies will be observational in design. Since relevant interventional studies prospectively evaluating the performance of such tools may also exist, we will include both types of studies. There is no restriction on the region, key population and/or HIV risk behaviours studied. Although the key operating characteristics of interest are sensitivity, specificity and AUC, some studies may instead report on positive and/or negative predictive value, from which the sensitivity and specificity can be calculated if the local HIV prevalence is known. Hence, any study reporting on any of these values will be eligible for inclusion. Most included studies will likely be descriptions of the derivation of a risk assessment tool, but some articles may present the results of a validation study, and would also be eligible. Systematic reviews, letters, editorials, duplicated results from the same study, studies that assessed the diagnostic performances of HIV risk tools for population-level HIV testing strategies and studies that reported on the performance of artificial intelligence or machine learning algorithms to predict HIV risk will be excluded.

    Information sources

    We will electronically search (Ovid) MEDLINE, EMBASE and (EBSCO) CINAHL databases from 1998 to the present. This timeframe was selected because the years since 1997 represent the modern era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, which has radically transformed the clinical course of HIV infection into a fully treatable condition at the individual level and thus affected the risk of HIV acquisition at the population level. We have also searched the PROSPERO registration database to identify ongoing or unpublished systematic reviews. Conference proceedings will not be searched due to time constraints. The reference lists of eligible studies will also be used to identify others of potential relevance. There will be no restrictions imposed on publication language. If studies are identified in languages other than English, the reports will be translated in conjunction with a native speaker of the language, or using Google Translate or a similar online translation tool.

    Search strategy

    A literature search strategy was developed by an experienced information specialist (IS) (TK), in consultation with the research team. The search will be conducted using subject headings and keywords related to the two main concepts: HIV acquisition and risk assessment tools. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) model, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook, will be used to develop a search grid for this review. The search grid with identified PICO concepts is presented in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Search grid with identifiable PICO concepts

    Using the identified PICO concepts, a three-step search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. First, keywords for PICO concepts were brainstormed by reviewers and the IS before the IS drafted an initial search strategy in MEDLINE. Second, the search strategy was reviewed by a second IS using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist for improving the accuracy, quality and comprehensiveness of our search strategy.31 Third, a final search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases will be conducted using the identified keywords and subject headings. Boolean operators such as ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ will be applied when combining similar search terms and different search terms, respectively. A detailed search strategy is presented in online supplemental file 2.

    Supplemental material

    Selection process

    Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into the Covidence online systematic review tool as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook.32 This tool is designed to help reviewers remove duplicates, screen abstracts and the full texts of identified articles, assess the risk of bias in included articles and perform data extraction. Abstracts of the relevant full texts will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers (MMO and DHST) independently. Full-text articles for the selected titles will be further reviewed independently by these reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus where possible or by a third reviewer (MH) as needed.

    Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence

    Following this selection, methodological quality of each included study will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Studies.33 This appraisal tool includes 10 criteria (rating: yes, no, unclear and not applicable), respectively, with an overall appraisal decision and a narrative form for decision-making. Two reviewers will assign each study a JBI score ranging from 1 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher quality. Resulting quality assessments will be included in the results of the review for descriptive purposes only rather than impacting decisions about eligibility for inclusion in the review. Any disagreements that arise among the reviewers at each stage of the study selection process will be resolved through discussions to reach a consensus. All screening, coding and data abstraction forms will be pilot-tested and revised as necessary. Risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision and publication bias will be included as domains within the tool to be considered, and additional domains may be added as appropriate. The quality will be determined to be high, moderate or very low depending on the certainty of the estimate of the effect.

    Data extraction

    Data will be extracted by MMO using the customised data extraction form in Covidence (online supplemental file 3).32 Another reviewer will also extract the key data related to our primary objective (sensitivity, specificity and AUC) independently and verify the remaining extracted data. Any discrepancies between reviewers will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary to achieve consensus. Extracted data will include study title, author, publication year, study design, study population, location, setting, risk tool, reference standard and data regarding the diagnostic validity of the tool. The key data of interest will be the diagnostic performance data (ie, sensitivity, specificity and AUC). When appropriate, we will extract percentages (sensitivity and specificity), AUC values, cut-off score points, number of incident HIV infections (or prevalent infection if incident number is not reported) and other discriminatory values of the tool (eg, Youden’s index and diagnostic ORs). For any study that lacks information required for proper assessment, the reviewers will attempt to contact the study authors up to three times.

    Supplemental material

    Data synthesis

    We will present a systematic narrative synthesis of the articles included, divided into three sections. First, we will provide a preliminary synthesis of findings that will involve a short textual description of each included study, including study design, population, comparative diagnostic data, reference standards and measures of diagnostic validity (sensitivity, specificity and AUC values). These summary measures will also be stratified by target population, country and incident or prevalent HIV as well as by various cut-off points used in these studies. Meta-analysis will only be performed if the data permit and we observe a low level of heterogeneity among risk tools, questions/items within the tools, study populations and study settings. Reasons for data heterogeneity will be explored by considering study design, population, comparable diagnostic data and incident or prevalent HIV infection. We will assess between-study heterogeneity using Higgins & Thompson’s I 2 statistic, with thresholds for low (25%), moderate (50%) or substantial (75%) heterogeneity. Forest plots will illustrate individual and overall estimates, including heterogeneity values for each tool within each population.

    Second, we will explore relationships within the data through thematic analysis, to identify any common themes/trends among HIV risk assessment tools within the included studies. Third, the robustness of the data of included studies will be contextualised using the critical appraisal tool in a narrative format.

    Ethics and dissemination of research

    This study will not require any formalised ethical review because we will only use data that are publicly available. The findings of this review will be presented to the panel of experts updating the Canadian Guidelines for PrEP and PEP and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences. The findings of this review will also be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Conclusion

    Despite established guidelines, identifying the most suitable candidates for HIV PrEP remains challenging. While it is important to empower people to self-identify as PrEP candidates, individuals often underestimate their risk of acquiring HIV, so it is important to support clinicians in proactively identifying individuals who could benefit from PrEP through HIV risk assessment. However, there has been a notable gap in comprehensive, up-to-date evaluations of these tools’ performance across diverse demographic contexts and geographic settings, which may hinder optimal PrEP delivery and effectiveness. Our systematic review will help clinicians determine which tools to use, depending on population and context, so as to accurately identify individuals at high risk, guide PrEP discussions and prevent more HIV infections.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Acknowledgments

    We thank Carolyn Ziegler, Information Specialist, Library Services, Unity Health Toronto, for conducting the PRESS peer review.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Baeten JM ,
      3. Donnell D ,
      4. Mugo NR , et al
      . Single-agent tenofovir versus combination emtricitabine plus tenofovir for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 acquisition: an update of data from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:1055–64. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70937-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      2. Baeten JM ,
      3. Donnell D ,
      4. Ndase P , et al
      . Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med 2012;367:399–410. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1108524
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      2. Choopanya K ,
      3. Martin M ,
      4. Suntharasamai P , et al
      . Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet 2013;381:2083–90. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61127-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      2. Grant RM ,
      3. Lama JR ,
      4. Anderson PL , et al
      . Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2587–99. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011205
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      2. Grant RM ,
      3. Anderson PL ,
      4. McMahan V , et al
      . Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:820–9. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70847-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      2. McCormack S ,
      3. Dunn DT ,
      4. Desai M , et al
      . Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. The Lancet 2016;387:53–60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      2. Tan DHS ,
      3. Dashwood TM ,
      4. Wilton J , et al
      . Trends in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake in Ontario, Canada, and impact of policy changes: a population-based analysis of projected pharmacy data (2015–2018). Can J Public Health 2021;112:89–96. doi:10.17269/s41997-020-00332-3
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      2. Cox J ,
      3. Apelian H ,
      4. Moodie EEM , et al
      . Use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among urban Canadian gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional analysis of the Engage cohort study. CMAJ Open 2021;9:E529–38. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200198
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      2. Hempel A ,
      3. Biondi MJ ,
      4. Baril JG , et al
      . Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: effective and underused. CMAJ 2022;194:E1164–70. doi:10.1503/cmaj.220645
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Public Health Agency of Canada
      . Estimates of HIV incidence, prevalence and Canada’s progress on meeting the 90-90-90 HIV targets. 2020. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/estimates-hiv-incidence-prevalence-canada-meeting-90-90-90-targets-2020.html
    11. ↵
      2. Pico-Espinosa OJ ,
      3. Hull M ,
      4. Gaspar M , et al
      . Disjuncture between self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. BMC Public Health 2023;23:1133. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16065-0
    12. ↵
      2. Pico-Espinosa OJ ,
      3. Hull M ,
      4. MacPherson P , et al
      . PrEP-related stigma and PrEP use among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. AIDS Res Ther 2022;19:49. doi:10.1186/s12981-022-00473-0
    13. ↵
      2. Picard J ,
      3. Jacka B ,
      4. Høj S , et al
      . Real-World Eligibility for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Among People Who Inject Drugs. AIDS Behav 2020;24:2400–8. doi:10.1007/s10461-020-02800-w
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      2. Kaplan EH ,
      3. Merson MH
      . Allocating HIV-prevention resources: balancing efficiency and equity. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1905–7. doi:10.2105/ajph.92.12.1905
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Public Health Service
      . Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2021 update: a clinical practice guideline. 2021. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf
    16. ↵
      2. Smith DK ,
      3. Van Handel M ,
      4. Grey J
      . Estimates of adults with indications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by jurisdiction, transmission risk group, and race/ethnicity, United States, 2015. Ann Epidemiol 2018;28:850–7. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.05.003
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      2. Hillis A ,
      3. Germain J ,
      4. Hope V , et al
      . Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): A Scoping Review on PrEP Service Delivery and Programming. AIDS Behav 2020;24:3056–70. doi:10.1007/s10461-020-02855-9
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    18. ↵
      2. Goparaju L ,
      3. Praschan NC ,
      4. Warren-Jeanpiere L , et al
      . Stigma, Partners, Providers and Costs: Potential Barriers to PrEP Uptake among US Women. J AIDS Clin Res 2017;8:730. doi:10.4172/2155-6113.1000730
    19. ↵
      2. Kahle EM ,
      3. Hughes JP ,
      4. Lingappa JR , et al
      . An Empiric Risk Scoring Tool for Identifying High-Risk Heterosexual HIV-1–Serodiscordant Couples for Targeted HIV-1 Prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013;62:339–47. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827e622d
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Balkus JE ,
      3. Brown E ,
      4. Palanee T , et al
      . An Empiric HIV Risk Scoring Tool to Predict HIV-1 Acquisition in African Women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016;72:333–43. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000974
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. Darke S ,
      3. Hall W ,
      4. Heather N , et al
      . The reliability and validity of a scale to measure HIV risk-taking behaviour among intravenous drug users. AIDS 1991;5:181–6. doi:10.1097/00002030-199102000-00008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      2. Golub SA ,
      3. Starbuck L ,
      4. Fikslin R , et al
      . Psychometric Evaluation and Predictive Validity of an Adapted Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale for PrEP. AIDS Behav 2023;27:218–30. doi:10.1007/s10461-022-03758-7
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      2. Wilton J ,
      3. Kain T ,
      4. Fowler S , et al
      . Use of an HIV-risk screening tool to identify optimal candidates for PrEP scale-up among men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada: disconnect between objective and subjective HIV risk. J Int AIDS Soc 2016;19:20777.
    24. ↵
      2. Smith DK ,
      3. Pals SL ,
      4. Herbst JH , et al
      . Development of a Clinical Screening Index Predictive of Incident HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012;60:421–7. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e318256b2f6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Trischuk T ,
      3. Little B ,
      4. LeBras M
      . Providing HIV preexposure prophylaxis. Can Fam Physician 2022;68:197–201. doi:10.46747/cfp.6803197
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      2. Siegler AJ ,
      3. Steehler K ,
      4. Sales JM , et al
      . A Review of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Streamlining Strategies. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2020;17:643–53. doi:10.1007/s11904-020-00528-9
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    27. ↵
      2. Storholm ED ,
      3. Siconolfi D ,
      4. Huang W , et al
      . Project SLIP: Implementation of a PrEP Screening and Linkage Intervention in Primary Care. AIDS Behav 2021;25:2348–57. doi:10.1007/s10461-021-03197-w
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      2. Tan DHS ,
      3. Hull MW ,
      4. Yoong D , et al
      . Canadian guideline on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis. CMAJ 2017;189:E1448–58. doi:10.1503/cmaj.170494
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      2. Shamseer L ,
      3. Moher D ,
      4. Clarke M , et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
    30. ↵
      2. Moher D ,
      3. Liberati A ,
      4. Tetzlaff J , et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    31. ↵
      2. McGowan J ,
      3. Sampson M ,
      4. Salzwedel DM , et al
      . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Veritas Health Innovation
      . Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia Veritas Health Innovation. Available: www.covidence.org
    33. ↵
      2. Campbell J ,
      3. Klugar M ,
      4. Ding S , et al
      . Chapter 9: diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. In: JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Conceptualisation—DHST. Protocol—MMO and DHST. First draft of the manuscript—MMO. Screening and data extraction—MMO, DHST and CS or MH. Analysis—all. Critical review of the manuscript—all. DHST is the guarantor.

    • Funding DHST was supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in HIV Prevention and STI Research. This work was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number PCS – 183410).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.