Furthermore, rather than fully explicating their methods, most of their 'results' section is devoted to explaining why the 12-months follow-up yielded more accurate reporting. Although this finding is indeed interesting and important, it is not directly related to how the research question was framed in terms of the superiority of using two different sources of data-tracking. Is the method of presentation effective? Is the method of presentation accurate?

While the findings are interesting, there are many questions left open-ended from a reader's point-of-view. For instance, how were these diagnoses obtained? Were they from individuals willingly being tested for HIV or who had received a diagnosis because of other complications or because of enforced testing (such as before entering a correctional setting). Different states have entirely different methods of tabulating data (for example, some use electronic record-keeping, others do not) but other than referring to this, no distinction are made between states.

Although underreporting may be a 'fact' the lack of information as to where and how it is occurring is frustrating for the reader.

Are the conclusions supported by the study results? What are the implications of the finding for practice and future research? What are the...

However, even regarding the two sources obtained for every state or venue "for completeness estimates based on two sources, the assumption that the two sources are independent may not be true for some programs. Therefore, results may not be accurate for these programs, and additional assessments of completeness (e.g., case-finding studies) may be needed" (Hal et al. 2006, p.396). Overall, the study points to a general trend at underreporting, without identifying what states, areas, or methods are the worst culprits contributing to this phenomenon.
References

Hall, Irene H., Ruiguang Song, John E. Gerstle III, & Lisa M. Lee (2006). Assessing the completeness of reporting of human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses in 2002 -- 2003: Capture-recapture methods. American Journal of Epidemiology.

164 (4): 391. Retrieved June 17, 2010 at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/164/4/391

Notes on using capture-recapture techniques to assess the sensitivity of rapid case-finding

Methods. (2006, July). VALID International Ltd. Version 0.7. Retrieved June 17, 2010 at http://www.brixtonhealth.com/CRCaseFinding.pdf