Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23990968›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Simple estimation of incident HIV infection rates in notification cohorts based on window periods of algorithms for evaluation of line-immunoassay result patterns.

Jörg Schüpbach, Martin D Gebhardt, Alexandra U Scherrer, Leslie R Bisset, Christoph Niederhauser, Stephan Regenass, Sabine Yerly, Vincent Aubert, Franziska Suter, Stefan Pfister and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Jörg SchüpbachUniversity of Zurich, Institute of Medical Virology, Swiss National Center for Retroviruses, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin D Gebhardt
Alexandra U Scherrer
Leslie R Bisset
Christoph Niederhauser
Stephan Regenass
Sabine Yerly
Vincent Aubert
Franziska Suter
Stefan Pfister
Gladys Martinetti
Corinne Andreutti
Thomas Klimkait
Marcel Brandenberger
Huldrych F Günthard
Swiss HIV Cohort Study
University Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHClinique de La Source · CHEnte Ospedaliero Cantonale · CHFederal Office of Public Health · CHSwiss Red Cross · CHUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Teacher Education Lucerne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTests for recent infections (TRIs) are important for HIV surveillance. We have shown that a patient's antibody pattern in a confirmatory line immunoassay (Inno-Lia) also yields information on time since infection. We have published algorithms which, with a certain sensitivity and specificity, distinguish between incident (< = 12 months) and older infection. In order to use these algorithms like other TRIs, i.e., based on their windows, we now determined their window periods.

methodsWe classified Inno-Lia results of 527 treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection < = 12 months according to incidence by 25 algorithms. The time after which all infections were ruled older, i.e. the algorithm's window, was determined by linear regression of the proportion ruled incident in dependence of time since infection. Window-based incident infection rates (IIR) were determined utilizing the relationship 'Prevalence = Incidence x Duration' in four annual cohorts of HIV-1 notifications. Results were compared to performance-based IIR also derived from Inno-Lia results, but utilizing the relationship 'incident = true incident + false incident' and also to the IIR derived from the BED incidence assay.

resultsWindow periods varied between 45.8 and 130.1 days and correlated well with the algorithms' diagnostic sensitivity (R(2) = 0.962; P<0.0001). Among the 25 algorithms, the mean window-based IIR among the 748 notifications of 2005/06 was 0.457 compared to 0.453 obtained for performance-based IIR with a model not correcting for selection bias. Evaluation of BED results using a window of 153 days yielded an IIR of 0.669. Window-based IIR and performance-based IIR increased by 22.4% and respectively 30.6% in 2008, while 2009 and 2010 showed a return to baseline for both methods.

conclusionsIIR estimations by window- and performance-based evaluations of Inno-Lia algorithm results were similar and can be used together to assess IIR changes between annual HIV notification cohorts.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansImmunoassayIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySwitzerlandTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23990968
PMCPMC3753319
OpenAlexW2047154347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.