ArticlePloS one2011
False-positive human immunodeficiency virus enzyme immunoassay results in pregnant women.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and barriers to rapid HIV/syphilis testing among pregnant Wayuu women in Colombia: A cross-sectional pragmatic study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Brief communication: observations of falsely reactive antigen/antibody HIV screening results in an emergency department setting.AIDS research and therapy · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance evaluation of urine HIV-1 antibody rapid test kits in a real-life routine care setting in China.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Case Report: Erroneous Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Diagnosis in a Pregnant Woman Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Diagnostic Algorithm.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Positive Anti-HIV ELISA Results in Pregnancy: Is It Reliable?Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- High level of HIV false positives using EIA-based algorithm in survey: Importance of confirmatory testing.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Brief Case: A Reactive HIV Rapid Antibody Test in a Pregnant Woman.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Use of rapid HIV assays as supplemental tests in specimens with repeatedly reactive screening immunoassay results not confirmed by HIV-1 Western blot.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2013Article
- Risk factors associated with false positive HIV test results in a low-risk urban obstetric population.Journal of pregnancy · 2012Article
- Comparative performance of electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and EIA for HIV screening in a multiethnic region of China.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExamine whether false-positive HIV enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test results occur more frequently among pregnant women than among women who are not pregnant and men (others).
designTo obtain a large number of pregnant women and others tested for HIV, we identified specimens tested at a national laboratory using Genetic Systems HIV-1/HIV-2 Plus O EIA from July 2007 to June 2008.
methodsSpecimens with EIA repeatedly reactive and Western blot-negative or indeterminate results were considered EIA false-positive. We compared the false-positive rate among uninfected pregnant women and others, adjusting for HIV prevalence. Among all reactive EIAs, we evaluated the proportion of false-positives, positive predictive value (PPV), and Western blot bands among indeterminates, by pregnancy status.
resultsHIV prevalence was 0.06% among 921,438 pregnant women and 1.34% among 1,103,961 others. The false-positive rate was lower for pregnant women than others (0.14% vs. 0.21%, odds ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.70]). Pregnant women with reactive EIAs were more likely than others (p<0.01) to have Western blot-negative (52.9% vs. 9.8%) and indeterminate results (17.0% vs. 3.7%) and lower PPV (30% vs. 87%). The p24 band was detected more often among pregnant women (p<0.01).
conclusionsFalse-positive HIV EIA results were rare and occurred less frequently among pregnant women than others. Pregnant women with reactive EIAs were more likely to have negative and indeterminate Western blot results due to lower HIV prevalence and higher p24 reactivity, respectively. Indeterminate results may complicate clinical management during pregnancy. Alternative methods are needed to rule out infection in persons with reactive EIAs from low prevalence populations.
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.