The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Universal Definition of Loss to Follow-Up in HIV Treatment Programs: A Statistical Analysis of 111 Facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although patient attrition is recognized as a threat to the long-term success of antiretroviral therapy programs worldwide, there is no universal definition for classifying patients as lost to follow-up (LTFU). We analyzed data from health facilities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America to empirically determine a standard LTFU definition. METHODS AND FINDINGS: At a set "status classification" date, patients were categorized as either "active" or "LTFU" according to different intervals from time of last clinic encounter. For each threshold, we looked forward 365 d to assess the performance and accuracy of this initial classification. The best-performing definition for LTFU had the lowest proportion of patients misclassified as active or LTFU. Observational data from 111 health facilities-representing 180,718 patients from 19 countries-were included in this study. In the primary analysis, for which data from all facilities were pooled, an interval of 180 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 173-181 d) since last patient encounter resulted in the fewest misclassifications (7.7%, 95% CI: 7.6%-7.8%). A secondary analysis that gave equal weight to cohorts and to regions generated a similar result (175 d); however, an alternate approach that used inverse weighting for cohorts based on variance and equal weighting for regions produced a slightly lower summary measure (150 d). When examined at the facility level, the best-performing definition varied from 58 to 383 d (mean=150 d), but when a standard definition of 180 d was applied to each facility, only slight increases in misclassification (mean=1.2%, 95% CI: 1.0%-1.5%) were observed. Using this definition, the proportion of patients classified as LTFU by facility ranged from 3.1% to 45.1% (mean=19.9%, 95% CI: 19.1%-21.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evaluation, we recommend the adoption of ≥180 d since the last clinic visit as a standard LTFU definition. Such standardization is an important step to understanding the reasons that underlie patient attrition and establishing more reliable and comparable program evaluation worldwide. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lester, R. T., Ritvo, P., Mills, E. J., Kariri, A., Karanja, S., Chung, M. H., Jack, W., Habyarimana, J., Sadatsafavi, M., Najafzadeh, M., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61997-6 · Cited by 1,278 · cited 1×
“and estimation of major disease markers such as CD4 counts. Finally, it provides the necessary framework for continued research to improve patient retention”
Background
Cited by
Fox, M. P., Bor, J., Brennan, A. T., MacLeod, W. B., Maskew, M., Stevens, W. S., & Carmona, S. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002589 · Cited by 103
Metadata
- Authors
- Chi, B. H., Yiannoutsos, C. T., Westfall, A. O., Newman, J. E., Zhou, J., Cesar, C., Brinkhof, M. W. G., Mwango, A., Balestre, E., Carriquiry, G., Sirisanthana, T., Mukumbi, H., Martin, J. N., Grimsrud, A., Bacon, M., Thiebaut, R., & on behalf of the International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS Collaboration
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-10-25
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e1001111
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- OpenAlex
- W2066534928
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Universal Definition of Loss to Follow-Up in HIV Treatment Programs: A Statistical Analysis of 111 Facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001111
- The paper
- Chi, B. H., Yiannoutsos, C. T., Westfall, A. O., Newman, J. E., Zhou, J., Cesar, C., Brinkhof, M. W. G., Mwango, A., Balestre, E., Carriquiry, G., Sirisanthana, T., Mukumbi, H., Martin, J. N., Grimsrud, A., Bacon, M., Thiebaut, R., & on behalf of the International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS Collaboration. (2011). Universal Definition of Loss to Follow-Up in HIV Treatment Programs: A Statistical Analysis of 111 Facilities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001111
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.