ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2013
Use of rapid HIV assays as supplemental tests in specimens with repeatedly reactive screening immunoassay results not confirmed by HIV-1 Western blot.
Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing HIV Diagnostics: Comparative Evaluation of Multisure HIV-1/2 Rapid Confirmatory Test Against Geenius and Traditional Reference Assays Within a CDC-Aligned Diagnostic Framework.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Prospective Evaluation of HIV Testing Technologies in a Clinical Setting: Protocol for Project DETECT.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Detection of Acute HIV-1 Infection by RT-LAMP.PloS one · 2015Article
- Potential for false-positive HIV test results using rapid HIV testing algorithms.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2015Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn alternate HIV testing algorithm has been proposed which includes a fourth-generation immunoassay followed by an HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation supplemental test for reactive specimens and a nucleic acid test (NAT) for specimens with discordant results.
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of five rapid tests (Alere Clearview, Bio-Rad Multispot, OraSure OraQuick, MedMira Reveal, and Trinity Biotech Unigold) as the supplemental antibody assay in the algorithm. STUDY
designA total of 3273 serum and plasma specimens that were third-generation immunoassay repeatedly reactive and Western blot (WB) negative or indeterminate were tested with rapid tests and NAT. Specimens were classified by NAT: (1) HIV-1 infected (NAT-reactive; n=184, 5.6%), (2) HIV-status unknown (NAT nonreactive; n=3078, 94.2%) or by Multispot, (3) HIV-2 positive (n=5), and (4) HIV-1 and HIV-2 positive (n=6). Excluding HIV-2 positive specimens, we calculated the proportion of reactive rapid tests among specimens with reactive and nonreactive NAT.
resultsThe proportion of infected specimens with reactive rapid test results and negative or indeterminate WB ranged from 30.4% (56) to 47.8% (88) depending on the rapid test. From 1% to 2% of NAT-negative specimens had reactive rapid test results.
conclusionsIn these diagnostically challenging specimens, all rapid tests identified infections that were missed by the Western blot, but only Multispot could differentiate HIV-1 from HIV-2. Regardless of which rapid test is used as a supplemental test in the alternative algorithm, false-positive algorithm results (i.e., reactive screening and rapid test in uninfected person) may occur, which will need to be resolved during the baseline medical evaluation.
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.