ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2011
HIV-1 load comparison using four commercial real-time assays.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- ViraLite: an ultracompact HIV viral load self-testing system with internal quality control.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- ViraLite: An Ultracompact HIV Viral Load Self-Testing System with Internal Quality Control.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Aptima(®) HIV-1 Quant Dx assay for HIV-1 RNA viral load detection and quantitation in plasma of HIV-1-infected individuals: A comparison with Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assay.Journal of medical virology · 2016Article
- Analytical Performances of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA-Based Amplix® Real-Time PCR Platform for HIV-1 RNA Quantification.AIDS research and treatment · 2016Article
- Evaluation of the Upgraded Version 2.0 of the Roche COBASThe open AIDS journal · 2016Article
- Genetic Characterization of a Panel of Diverse HIV-1 Isolates at Seven International Sites.PloS one · 2016Article
- 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
- Ability of two commercially available assays (Abbott RealTime HIV-1 and Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 Version 2.0) to quantify low HIV-1 RNA Levels (<1,000 copies/milliliter): comparison with clinical samples and NIBSC working reagent for nucleic acid testing assays.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- Comparative performances of HIV-1 RNA load assays at low viral load levels: results of an international collaboration.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- Article
- Sequencing assays for failed genotyping with the versant hepatitis C virus genotype assay (LiPA), version 2.0.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Quantification of viral loads lower than 50 copies per milliliter by use of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 test, version 2.0, can predict the likelihood of subsequent virological rebound to >50 copies per milliliter.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Comparison of HIV-1 viral load assay performance in immunological stable patients with low or undetectable viremia.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2013Article
- Digitally programmable microfluidic automaton for multiscale combinatorial mixing and sample processing.Lab on a chip · 2013Article
- Article
- Past, present and future molecular diagnosis and characterization of human immunodeficiency virus infections.Emerging microbes & infections · 2012Review
- Cross-platform analysis of HIV-1 RNA data generated by a multicenter assay validation study with wide geographic representation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Current practices in laboratory monitoring of HIV infection.The Indian journal of medical research · 2011Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The HIV-1 RNA viral load is commonly used for the monitoring of disease progression and antiretroviral treatment of HIV-1-infected patients. Since the misestimating of values could lead to inappropriate therapeutical management, the comparative performances, especially the ability to span the genetic diversity of HIV-1, of available automated real-time assays need to be evaluated. We conducted a prospective study with 74 consenting patients enrolled between March 2007 and November 2008. A blood sample was obtained at the time of diagnosis of HIV seropositivity and blindly tested for HIV-1 RNA by at least 4 commercial tests: the Abbott m2000 RealTime HIV-1, bioMérieux NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1, version 1.2 (v1.2), and Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan (CAP/CTM) v1.0 and v2.0 assays. The means of difference were null between CAP/CTM v2.0 and Abbott for CRF02_AG subtypes but positive in favor of CAP/CTM v2.0 for genotype B and negative in favor of NucliSens for all genotypes. The standard deviation (SD) of difference ranged from 0.3 to 0.59, depending on the considered couples of assays. Reliabilities of these four tests, appreciated by the standard deviation of difference between the measurement and the estimated "true" viral load and by the coefficient of reliability, were significantly different (P < 10(-4)) among each other. Significant differences were also observed within each group of HIV-1 genotype. The global disparity was higher for CRF02_AG than for B subtypes. This study indicates a risk of viral load misestimating or discrepancies between techniques, depending on the HIV-1 subtype, and speaks in favor of using the same assay for the monitoring of HIV-1-infected patients.
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.