ArticlePloS one2011
The effect of sample handling on cross sectional HIV incidence testing results.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for identifying individuals with recent HIV infection: HPTN 071 (PopART).PloS one · 2021Trial
- Cross-protective vaccine efficacy of the bivalent HPV vaccine against HPV31 is associated with humoral immune responses: results from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2013Trial
- Stable SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and functionality in serum and COVID-19 convalescent plasma after long-term storage.Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
- Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in settings with universal antiretroviral treatment.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Stability of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in multiple laboratory conditions and blood sample types.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021Article
- The concordance of the limiting antigen and the Bio-Rad avidity assays in persons from Estonia infected mainly with HIV-1 CRF06_cpx.PloS one · 2019Article
- Identification and validation of a multi-assay algorithm for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in populations with subtype C infection.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Article
- Infection Staging and Incidence Surveillance Applications of High Dynamic Range Diagnostic Immuno-Assay Platforms.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2017Article
- How can we better identify early HIV infections?Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2015Review
- HIV incidence determination in the United States: a multiassay approach.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2013Article
- Factors associated with incorrect identification of recent HIV infection using the BED capture immunoassay.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): To determine if mishandling prior to testing would make a sample from a chronically infected subject appear recently infected when tested by cross-sectional HIV incidence assays.
methodsSerum samples from 31 subjects with chronic HIV infection were tested. Samples were subjected to different handling conditions, including incubation at 4 °C, 25 °C and 37 °C, for 1, 3, 7 or 15 days prior to testing. Samples were also subjected to 1,3, 7 and 15 freeze-thaw cycles prior to testing. Samples were tested using the BED capture enzyme immuno assay (BED-CEIA), Vironostika-less sensitive (V-LS), and an avidity assay using the Genetic Systems HIV-1/HIV-2 plus O EIA (avidity assay).
resultsCompared to the sample that was not subjected to any mishandling conditions, for the BED-CEIA, V-LS and avidity assay, there was no significant change in test results for samples incubated at 4 °C or 25 °C prior to testing. No impact on test results occurred after 15 freeze-thaw cycles. A decrease in assay results was observed when samples were held for 3 days or longer at 37 °C prior to testing.
conclusionsSamples can be subjected up to 15 freeze-thaw cycles without affecting the results the BED-CEIA, Vironostika-LS, or avidity assays. Storing samples at 4 °C or 25 °C for up to fifteen days prior to testing had no impact on test results. However, storing samples at 37°C for three or more days did affect results obtained with these assays.
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.