ArticlePloS one2012
Comparative performance of electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and EIA for HIV screening in a multiethnic region of China.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A method to alleviate false-positive results of the Elecsys HIV combi PT assay.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Concomitant systemic lupus erythematosus and HIV infection: A rare case report and literature review.Medicine · 2017Review
- Assessing the sensitivity and specificity of First Response HIV-1-2 test kit with whole blood and serum samples: a cross-sectional study.AIDS research and therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recent approval of 4th generation HIV tests has forced many laboratories to decide whether to shift from 3rd to these tests. There are limited published studies on the comparative evaluation of these two different assays. We compare the performance of fourth-generation electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ChIA) and third-generation enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (EIA) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and gauge whether the shift from EIA to ChIA could be better in a multiethnic region of China. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe identified a large number of routine specimens (345,492) using two different assays from Jan 2008 to Aug 2011 in a teaching hospital with high sample throughput. Of the 344,596 specimens with interpretable HIV test results, 526(0.23%) of 228,761 using EIA and 303(0.26%) of 115,835 using ChIA were HIV-1 positive. The false-positive rate of EIA was lower than that of ChIA [0.03% vs. 0.08%, odds ratio 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.24, 0.45)]. The positive predictive value (PPV) of EIA (89.6%) was significantly higher than that of ChIA (76.1%) (<0.001), reflecting the difference between the two assays. The clinical sensitivities of two assays in this study were 99.64% for EIA and 99.88% for ChIA.
conclusionCaution is needed before shifting from 3rd to 4th generation HIV tests. Since none of these tests are perfect, different geographic and ethnic area probably require different considerations with regard to HIV testing methods, taking into account the local conditions.
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.