ArticleJournal of medical virology2015
Performance of rapid tests for discrimination between HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 infections.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- HIV rapid screening tests and self-tests: Be aware of differences in performance and cautious of vendors.EBioMedicine · 2018Trial
- Article
- Evaluation of Two HIV Rapid Diagnostic Tests in a Context of Strains' Genetic Diversity in Mali.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Voluntary HIV Testing Strategies in a Very Low-Prevalence Country, the Republic of Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Detection and differentiation of HIV-2 using the point-of-care Alere q HIV-1/2 Detect nucleic acid test.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2017Article
- Assessment of the Cavidi ExaVir Load Assay for Monitoring Plasma Viral Load in HIV-2-Infected Patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- A Multiplex PCR Approach for Detecting Dual Infections and Recombinants Involving Major HIV Variants.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Comment on Gautheret-Dejean et al.: Performance of rapid tests for discrimination between HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 infections.Journal of medical virology · 2016Article
- Implementing the Use of Rapid HIV Tests in Public Health Centers in Seoul: Results of a Pilot Project, 2014.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major differences exist between HIV-1 and HIV-2 in terms of epidemiology, pathogenicity, sensitivity to antiretrovirals. Determining the type of HIV infecting a patient is essential for management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of simple/rapid tests to differentiate between HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 infections. We analyzed 116 samples from patients infected with HIV-1 (n = 61), HIV-2 (n = 47), or HIV-1+HIV-2 (n = 8) at the chronic stage of infection. Each sample was tested with SD Bioline HIV-1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2 (WB), Genie III HIV-1/HIV-2, ImmunoComb HIV1&2 BiSpot. HIV-1, or HIV-2 single infection was identified with a sensitivity ranging from 90% to 100%. The ability to detect dual infection was less sensitive (12.5-100%). SD Bioline HIV-1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2, and Genie III were unable to detect HIV-1 group O infection in one, one and two cases, respectively. The specificity of detection of HIV-1, HIV-2, or HIV-1+HIV-2 antibodies differed greatly (36-100%). ImmunoComb BiSpot had the highest sensitivity values (99-100% for HIV-1, 98% for HIV-2, and 75-87.5% for dual infection) and specificity values (94-100% for HIV-1, 100% for HIV-2, and 97-100% for dual infection). In conclusion, this study showed that no single rapid test had a perfect sensitivity/specificity ratio, particularly in the case of the double infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26081750What 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.