Table 1.
HIV case reported in Guangdong in 2013 and sample selection
| City | Number of reported cases | Number of selected samples | Sampling Ratio | Number of genotyped samples | Corrected number of represented cases in the study | Representation in the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangzhou | 1342 | 81 | 6.0% | 77 | 1330 | 5.8% |
| Shenzhen | 1189 | 80 | 6.7% | 65 | 1187 | 5.5% |
| Dongguan | 579 | 76 | 13.1% | 67 | 575 | 11.7% |
| Foshan | 482 | 76 | 15.8% | 61 | 481 | 12.7% |
| Jiangmen | 291 | 68 | 23.4% | 60 | 291 | 20.6% |
| Yangjiang | 187 | 90 | 48.1% | 58 | 183 | 31.7% |
| Zhongshan | 186 | 64 | 34.4% | 60 | 186 | 32.3% |
| Zhanjiang | 174 | 127 | 73.0% | 55 | 174 | 31.6% |
| Huizhou | 155 | 59 | 38.1% | 59 | 154 | 38.3% |
| Yunfu | 149 | 59 | 39.6% | 45 | 147 | 30.6% |
| Maoming | 147 | 59 | 40.1% | 57 | 137 | 41.6% |
| Qingyuan | 146 | 59 | 40.4% | 59 | 143 | 41.3% |
| Zhaoqing | 108 | 53 | 49.1% | 50 | 108 | 46.3% |
| Shantou | 91 | 50 | 54.9% | 49 | 88 | 55.7% |
| Zhuhai | 81 | 48 | 59.3% | 48 | 81 | 59.3% |
| Shaoguan | 61 | 31 | 50.8% | 31 | 60 | 51.7% |
| Heyuan | 48 | 33 | 68.8% | 33 | 48 | 68.8% |
| Meizhou | 47 | 30 | 63.8% | 29 | 45 | 64.4% |
| Jieyang | 40 | 20 | 50.0% | 20 | 38 | 52.6% |
| Shanwei | 24 | 20 | 83.3% | 18 | 23 | 78.3% |
| Chaozhou | 21 | 22 | 104.8% | 20 | 21 | 95.2% |
| Total | 5548 | 1205 | 21.7% | 1021 | 5500 | 18.6% |