SynthesisPloS one2014
Systematic review of the performance of HIV viral load technologies on plasma samples.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the accuracy of plasma preparation tubes for HIV viral load testing.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic review of the performance and clinical utility of point of care HIV-1 RNA testing for diagnosis and care.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Feasibility and reliability of decentralized HIV-1 viral load monitoring on self-sampled blood.PloS one · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of fingerstick blood self-microcollection for remote HIV suppression monitoring in Atlanta, Georgia, USA: a path to expanding access to continuum of care.AIDS research and therapy · 2025Article
- HIV Cerebrospinal Fluid Escape: Interventions for the Management, Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Review
- Article
- Multilevel determinants of antiretroviral therapy initiation and retention in the test-and-treat era of Nepal: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Performance of Xpert HIV-1 viral load test in Senegal: a country of high circulation of CRF02_AG.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Performance Comparison of Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load Assay and Roche Taqman and Abbott M2000 RT in Bamako, Mali.Journal of AIDS & clinical research · 2020Article
- Article
- Utility Of POC Xpert HIV-1 Tests For Detection-Quantification Of Complex HIV Recombinants Using Dried Blood Spots From Kinshasa, D. R. Congo.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Performance of a Novel Low-Cost, Instrument-Free Plasma Separation Device for HIV Viral Load Quantification and Determination of Treatment Failure in People Living with HIV in Malaysia: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Field suitability and diagnostic accuracy of the Biocentric® open real-time PCR platform for plasma-based HIV viral load quantification in Swaziland.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Enhanced sensitivity in THz plasmonic sensors with silver nanowires.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Assessment of the Cavidi ExaVir Load Assay for Monitoring Plasma Viral Load in HIV-2-Infected Patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- GeneXpert HIV-1 quant assay, a new tool for scale up of viral load monitoring in the success of ART programme in India.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- European Multicenter Study on Analytical Performance of Veris HIV-1 Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundViral load (VL) monitoring is the standard of care in developing country settings for detecting HIV treatment failure. Since 2010 the World Health Organization has recommended a phase-in approach to VL monitoring in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy and precision of HIV VL technologies for treatment monitoring. METHODS AND
findingsA search of Medline and Embase was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy or reproducibility of commercially available HIV VL assays. 37 studies were included for review including evaluations of the Amplicor Monitor HIV-1 v1.5 (n = 25), Cobas TaqMan v2.0 (n = 11), Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (n = 23), Versant HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 (n = 15), Versant HIV-1 RNA kPCR 1.0 (n = 2), ExaVir Load v3 (n = 2), and NucliSens EasyQ v2.0 (n = 1). All currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma virus levels at a lower detection limit of 1,000 copies/mL. Bias data comparing the Abbott RealTime HIV-1, TaqMan v2.0 to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5 showed a tendency of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 to under-estimate results while the TaqMan v2.0 overestimated VL counts. Compared to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5, 2-26% and 9-70% of results from the Versant bDNA 3.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 differed by greater than 0.5log10. The average intra and inter-assay variation of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 were 2.95% (range 2.0-5.1%) and 5.44% (range 1.17-30.00%) across the range of VL counts (2log10-7log10).
conclusionsThis review found that all currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma VL of 1,000 copies/mL as a threshold to initiate investigations of treatment adherence or possible treatment failure. Sources of variability between VL assays include differences in technology platform, plasma input volume, and ability to detect HIV-1 subtypes. Monitoring of individual patients should be performed on the same technology platform to ensure appropriate interpretation of changes in VL. Prospero registration # CD42013003603.
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.