Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States

Open access
Siegler, Aaron J., Mouhanna, Farah, Giler, Robertino Mera, Weiss, Kevin, Pembleton, Elizabeth, Guest, Jodie, Jones, Jeb, Castel, Amanda, Yeung, Howa, Kramer, Michael, McCallister, Scott, Sullivan, Patrick S.·2018·Annals of Epidemiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The number of individuals who have started a regimen for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States is not well characterized but has been on the rise since 2012. This analysis assesses the distribution of PrEP use nationally and among subgroups. METHODS: A validated algorithm quantifying tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine for PrEP in the United States was applied to a national prescription database to determine the quarterly prevalence of PrEP use. HIV diagnoses from 2016 were used as an epidemiological proxy for PrEP need. The PrEP-to-need ratio (PnR) was defined as the number of PrEP users divided by new HIV diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 70,395 individuals used PrEP in the fourth quarter of 2017: 67,166 males and 3229 females. Nationally, prevalence of PrEP use was 26/100,000 (range across states per 100,000 [RAS/100k]: 4-73) and the PnR was 1.8 (RAS: 0.5-6.6). Prevalence of PrEP use among males and females, respectively, was 50/100,000 and 2/100,000 (RAS/100k: 7-143 and 0.3-7) and PnR was 2.1 and 0.4 (RAS: 0.6-7.1 and 0.1-4.0). Prevalence of PrEP use was lowest among individuals aged less than or equal to 24 and more than or equal to 55 years (15/100,000 and 6/100,000, RAS/100k: 1-45 and 0.4-14), with PnR 0.9 and 1.5 (RAS: 0.2-5.6 and 0.3-7.0). The Northeast had the highest PnR (3.3); the South had the lowest (1.0). States with Medicaid expansion had more than double the PnR than states without expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that females, individuals aged less than or equal to 24 years and residents of the South had lower levels of PrEP use relative to epidemic need. These results are ecological, and misclassification may attenuate results. PnR is useful for future assessments of HIV prevention strategy uptake.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.005

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 404

Metadata

Authors
Siegler, A. J., Mouhanna, F., Giler, R. M., Weiss, K., Pembleton, E., Guest, J., Jones, J., Castel, A., Yeung, H., Kramer, M., McCallister, S., & Sullivan, P. S.
Venue
Annals of Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
28
Issue
12
Pages
841-849
ISSN
1047-2797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808046551
Cited by
404
References
4
FWCI
30.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.005
The paper
Siegler, A. J., Mouhanna, F., Giler, R. M., Weiss, K., Pembleton, E., Guest, J., Jones, J., Castel, A., Yeung, H., Kramer, M., McCallister, S., & Sullivan, P. S. (2018). The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. Annals of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.