ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004
Comparison of versions 1.0 AND 1.5 of the UltraSensitive AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test for subjects with low viral load.
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 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of episodes of intermittent viremia ("blips") on immune responses and viral load rebound in successfully treated HIV-infected patients.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2013Trial
- Cerebrospinal and peripheral human immunodeficiency virus type 1 load in a multisite, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of D-Ala1-peptide T-amide for HIV-1-associated cognitive-motor impairment.Journal of neurovirology · 2006Trial
- Transient detectable viremia and the risk of viral rebound in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- 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 of the version 1.5 and version 1.0 ultrasensitive Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR kits at low concentrations of human immunodeficiency virus RNA.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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the performance of two UltraSensitive AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR kits (version 1.5 [v1.5] versus v1.0) by retesting 404 plasma samples with low viral loads (<3,000 copies/ml) with both kits. With 292 samples that initially had <50 copies/ml by the v1.0 kit, the v1.5 assay was more sensitive than the v1.0 assay for samples with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA near the 50-copy/ml cutoff (P = 0.0146). Median numbers of copies per milliliter were similar for 112 samples with 50 to 3,000 copies/ml with no difference in sensitivity with a 200-copy/ml cutoff.
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.