ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004
Assessment of agreement between the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test versions 1.0 and 1.5.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter performance evaluation of a new TaqMan PCR assay for monitoring human immunodeficiency virus RNA load.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
- Discordance between viral loads determined by Roche COBAS AMPLICOR human immunodeficiency virus type 1 monitor (version 1.5) Standard and ultrasensitive assays caused by freezing patient plasma in centrifuged becton-dickinson vacutainer brand plasma preparation tubes.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Comparison of the sensitivities and viral load values of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 and 1.5 tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The agreement of the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 (MWP 1.0), the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (MWP 1.5), and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (COBAS 1.5) tests was evaluated using clinical specimens and well-characterized control material. Two hundred patient plasma specimens and a panel of known human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtypes were tested. All data were log(10) transformed prior to analysis. The 95% limits of agreement for the three tests at the average of 3.66 log(10) copies/ml were +/- 0.28 log(10), +/- 0.34 log(10), and +/- 0.34 log(10) copies/ml for MWP 1.0-MWP 1.5, MWP 1.0-COBAS 1.5, and MWP 1.5-COBAS 1.5, respectively. Ten specimens (6.1%) had differences exceeding the limits of agreement for the MWP 1.0 and MWP 1.5 tests. Correlation coefficients among the three tests were high (r >or=0.96). The viral-load values obtained with the MWP 1.0 test were only 2.1% higher on average than those measured with the MWP 1.5 test and 1.6% higher than those seen with the COBAS 1.5 test. The MWP 1.5 test values were 0.8% higher than the COBAS 1.5 test values. Overall, there was less agreement among the different tests for viral-load values near the lower limit of quantification. The MWP 1.0 test underquantified subtypes A, E, F, G, and H by 1.0 to 2.0 log(10) copies/ml; this problem was not observed with the MWP 1.5 test. The close agreement among the results obtained with the different test versions and formats suggests that it is not necessary to reestablish a baseline viral load when changing AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR tests, unless the patient is known to be infected with a non-B subtype.
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.