Responses

Download PDFPDF
Short report
Dried blood spot and mini-tube blood sample collection kits for postal HIV testing services: a comparative review of successes in a real-world setting
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Authors response to Loebers eLetter
    • Matthew Page, HIV/Sexual health Specialist University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Sowsan F. Atabani, Consultant Virologist
      • Steven Wilson, Clinical Scientist
      • Stephen Taylor, Consultant HIV/GU Physician

    We apologise for the delay in responding to your letter. We were only recently notified of this by email. Thank you for taking the time to construct your letter in response to our published short report, to which you raise several points which require addressing.

    Firstly we feel it is important to highlight that although this service evaluation focussed specifically on HIV, we acknowledged that the HIV sampling kit was part of a more comprehensive STI kit (syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhoea tests). We were upfront with this fact in our report, and therefore refute the claim by the responder that our paper failed to consider the wider test portfolio required by sexual health screening services.

    Of greater concern to us, we note a major error in the calculations from the data provided by the responders for their “RRR” and “HIV result obtained/ STI kit requested” values. This is important, as the foundation of their concluding statement is based on this error. The responder's have incorrectly used the number of returned kits (256,717) instead of the number of requested kits (319,485) in calculating the RRR (request-to-return ratio) and the “HIV result obtained/STI kit requested” proportion. Applying the correct calculation, the RRR value using the responder's data is not 1.36 (256,717/188,187) but 1.70 (319,485/188,187). The “HIV result obtained/STI kit requested” proportion using the correct calculation is 58.9% (188,187/319,485) and not 73.3%...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.