Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

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 access
Chi, Benjamin H., Yiannoutsos, Constantin T., Westfall, Andrew O., Newman, Jamie E., Zhou, Jialun, Cesar, Carina, Brinkhof, Martin W. G., Mwango, Albert, Balestre, Eric, Carriquiry, Gabriela, Sirisanthana, Thira, Mukumbi, Henri, Martin, Jeffrey N., Grimsrud, Anna, Bacon, Melanie, Thiebaut, Rodolphe, on behalf of the International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS Collaboration·2011·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001111

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 222

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
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.