ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2010
Performance of NucliSens HIV-1 EasyQ Version 2.0 compared with six commercially available quantitative nucleic acid assays for detection of HIV-1 in China.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2010. 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.
- A handheld HIV detection platform using paper-based sample preparation and real-time isothermal amplification.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2024Article
- Nucleic acid testing and molecular characterization of HIV infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Review
- Evaluation of the RealTime HIV-1, Xpert HIV-1, and Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx Assays in Comparison to the NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 v2.0 Assay for Quantification of HIV-1 Viral Load.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Quantitative nucleic acid amplification methods and their implications in clinical virology.International journal of applied & basic medical researchReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSix HIV-1 viral load assays have been widely used in China. These include the Cobas Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Version 1.5 ('Amplicor'), Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 test Version 1.0 ('CAP/CTM'), Versant HIV-1 RNA Version 3.0 (branched DNA [bDNA]-based assay; 'Versant bDNA'), Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assay ('Abbott RealTime'), NucliSens HIV-1 QT (nucleic acid sequence-based amplification assay; 'NucliSens NASBA'), and NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 Version 1.1 ('EasyQ V1.1'). Recently, an updated version of EasyQ V1.1, NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 Version 2.0 ('EasyQ V2.0') was introduced into China. It is important to evaluate the impact of HIV-1 genotypes on the updated assay compared with the other commercial available assays in China.
methodsA total of 175 plasma samples with different HIV-1 clades prevalent in China were collected from treatment-naïve patients. The viral loads of those samples were determined with the seven HIV-1 viral load assays, and the quantitative differences between them were evaluated.
resultsOverall, EasyQ V2.0 exhibited a significant correlation (R = 0.769-0.850, p ≤ 0.001) and high agreement (94.77-97.13%, using the Bland-Altman model) with the other six assays. Although no significant differences between EasyQ V2.0 and the other six assays were observed when quantifying clade B' samples, there were statistically significant differences between EasyQ V2.0 and the Amplicor, Versant bDNA, and Abbott RealTime assays when quantifying clade BC samples, and between EasyQ V2.0 and the Versant bDNA and Abbott RealTime assays when quantifying clade AE samples. For clade BC samples, the quantitative differences between EasyQ V2.0 and the Amplicor, Versant bDNA, and Abbott RealTime assays exceeded 0.5 log(10) IU/mL in approximately 50% of samples and exceeded 1 log(10) IU/mL in approximately 15% of samples. For clade AE samples, the quantitative differences between EasyQ V2.0 and the CAP/CTM, Versant bDNA, and Abbott RealTime assays exceeded 0.5 log(10) IU/mL in approximately 50% of samples, and the differences between EasyQ V2.0 and CAP/CTM exceeded 1 log(10) IU/mL in approximately 15% of samples.
conclusionGenotypes may affect the quantification of HIV-1 RNA, especially in clade BC samples with respect to EasyQ V2.0 and the Amplicor, Versant bDNA, or Abbott RealTime assays, and in clade AE samples with respect to EasyQ V2.0 and the Versant bDNA or Abbott RealTime assays. It is therefore strongly suggested that, where possible, the HIV-1 viral load in infected patients be quantified at follow-up by the same version of the same assay that was used initially.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21053996What 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.