ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001
Quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in cell-free cervicovaginal secretions: comparison of reverse transcription-PCR amplification (AMPLICOR HIV-A MONITOR 1.5) with enhanced-sensitivity branched-DNA assay (Quantiplex 3.0).
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of human immunodeficiency virus type 1-specific inhibitory activities in saliva and other human mucosal fluids.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2006Article
- Real-time PCR quantification of genital shedding of herpes simplex virus (HSV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in women coinfected with HSV and HIV.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
- Isolation of CD4-independent primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates that are syncytium inducing and acutely cytopathic for CD8+ lymphocytes.Journal of virology · 2004Article
- Quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA loads in cervicovaginal secretions in pregnant women and relationship between viral loads in the genital tract and blood.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2004Article
- Comparison of washing and swabbing procedures for collecting genital fluids to assess shedding of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in asymptomatic HIV-1-infected women.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two commercially available hypersensitive assays for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA quantitation, AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor Test 1.5 and Quantiplex HIV RNA 3.0, were compared to detect and quantify HIV-1 RNA in the cell-free fraction of cervicovaginal secretions collected by vaginal washing. Three panel specimens were used: pooled cervicovaginal secretions spiked with HIV-1 subtype A or HIV-1 subtype B and cervicovaginal lavages from HIV-positive and HIV-negative women. Compared to the AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor Test 1.5 assay, the Quantiplex HIV-1 3.0 assay yielded higher estimates of HIV-1 RNA concentrations in several tested samples spiked with HIV-1 RNA subtype A, as well as subtype B, particularly samples containing low amounts of HIV-1 RNA. The sensitivity and specificity of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor Test 1.5 assay were 93 and 100%, respectively; the sensitivity and specificity of the Quantiplex HIV RNA 3.0 assay were 97 and 50%, respectively. In conclusion, in quantifying HIV-1 RNA in cervicovaginal secretions, the Quantiplex HIV RNA 3.0 may lack specificity, and the AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor Test 1.5 assay, although highly specific, may lack sensitivity.
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.