ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2000
Quality of human immunodeficiency virus viral load testing in Australia.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous Treatment of Missing Data and Measurement Error in HIV Research Using Multiple Overimputation.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2015Article
- Standardization of NAT for Blood-Borne Pathogens.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2015Review
- Stability of hepatitis C virus, HIV, and hepatitis B virus nucleic acids in plasma samples after long-term storage at -20°C and -70°C.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- International standards and reference materials for quantitative molecular infectious disease testing.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study determined the proficiencies of laboratories measuring human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) viral loads and the accuracies of two assays used for HIV-1 viral load measurement in Australia and investigated the variability of the new versions of these assays. Quality assessment program panels containing (i) dilutions of HIV-1 subtype B, (ii) replicates of identical samples of HIV-1 subtype B, and (iii) samples of subtype E and B were tested by laboratories. Total variability (within and between laboratories) was tested with quality control samples. The coefficients of variation (CVs) for the Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version (v) 1.0 and Chiron Quantiplex bDNA 2.0 assays ranged from 53 to 87% and 22 to 31%, respectively. The widespread occurrence of invalid runs with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 assay was identified. The CVs of the new versions of the assays were 82 to 86% for the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR v 1.5 assay and 16 to 23% for the Quantiplex bDNA 3.0 assay. For virus dilution samples, all but 5 of 19 laboratories obtained results within 2 standard deviations of the mean. The Quantiplex bDNA 2.0 assay reported values lower than those reported by the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 assay for samples containing HIV-1 subtype B, whereas the reverse was true for subtype E. Identification and resolution of the problem of invalid runs markedly improved the quality of HIV-1 viral load testing. The variability observed between laboratories and between assays, even the most recent versions, dictates that monitoring of viral load in an individual should always be by the same laboratory and by the same assay. Results for an individual which differ by less than 0.5 log(10) HIV-1 RNA copy number/ml should not be considered clinically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.