ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2014
Short Communication: Defining optimality of a test for recent infection for HIV incidence surveillance.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent HIV Infections in Italy: Data from the HIV National Surveillance System, 2012-2023.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of non-disclosure of HIV status and antiretroviral therapy on HIV recency testing and incidence algorithms.Vox sanguinis · 2024Article
- Subnational HIV incidence trends in Malawi: large, heterogeneous declines across space.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- HIV incidence estimation among female sex workers in South Africa: a multiple methods analysis of cross-sectional survey data.The lancet. HIV · 2022Article
- Recent HIV Infection: Diagnosis and Public Health Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Antibody avidity-based approach to estimate population-level incidence of hepatitis C.Journal of hepatology · 2020Article
- Validation of the Limiting Antigen Avidity Assay to Estimate Level and Trends in HIV Incidence in an A/D Epidemic in Rakai, Uganda.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2019Article
- Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Infection Staging and Incidence Surveillance Applications of High Dynamic Range Diagnostic Immuno-Assay Platforms.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the limiting antigen avidity EIA (LAg) in people who inject drugs in Greece.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Article
- Viral load criteria and threshold optimization to improve HIV incidence assay characteristics.AIDS (London, England) · 2016Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Modified Fourth-Generation Human Immunodeficiency Virus Enzyme Immunoassay for Cross-Sectional Incidence Estimation in Clade B Populations.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2016Article
- Use of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Immunoglobulin G Antibody Avidity as a Biomarker to Estimate the Population-Level Incidence of HCV Infection.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Systemic Cytokine Levels Do Not Predict CD4(+) T-Cell Recovery After Suppressive Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Chronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Open forum infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Closer to 90-90-90. The cascade of care after 10 years of ART scale-up in rural Malawi: a population study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2016Article
- Comparison of antibody responses to HIV infection in Ugandan women infected with HIV subtypes A and D.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2015Article
- Assessing Biases in the Evaluation of Classification Assays for HIV Infection Recency.PloS one · 2015Article
- How can we better identify early HIV infections?Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The estimation of HIV incidence from cross-sectional surveys using tests for recent infection has attracted much interest. It is increasingly recognized that the lack of high performance recent infection tests is hindering the implementation of this surveillance approach. With growing funding opportunities, test developers are currently trying to fill this gap. However, there is a lack of consensus and clear guidance for developers on the evaluation and optimization of candidate tests. A fundamental shift from conventional thinking about test performance is needed: away from metrics relevant in typical public health settings where the detection of a condition in individuals is of primary interest (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) and toward metrics that are appropriate when estimating a population-level parameter such as incidence (accuracy and precision). The inappropriate use of individual-level diagnostics performance measures could lead to spurious assessments and suboptimal designs of tests for incidence estimation. In some contexts, such as population-level application to HIV incidence, bias of estimates is essentially negligible, and all that remains is the maximization of precision. The maximization of the precision of incidence estimates provides a completely general criterion for test developers to assess and optimize test designs. Summarizing the test dynamics into the properties relevant for incidence estimation, high precision estimates are obtained when (1) the mean duration of recent infection is large, and (2) the false-recent rate is small. The optimal trade-off between these two test properties will produce the highest precision, and therefore the most epidemiologically useful incidence estimates.
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.