ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2015
Short Communication: Low False Recent Rate of Limiting-Antigen Avidity Assay Among Long-Term Infected Subjects from Guangxi, China.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of HIV Recency Assays for HIV Incidence Estimation and Other Surveillance Use Cases: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Pooled it
- Decision tree for accurate infection timing in individuals newly diagnosed with HIV-1 infection.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Estimating False-Recent Classification for the Limiting-Antigen Avidity EIA and BED-Capture Enzyme Immunoassay in Vietnam: Implications for HIV-1 Incidence Estimates.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2017Article
- Observational
- Evaluation of the limiting antigen avidity EIA (LAg) in people who inject drugs in Greece.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Article
- Analysis of Viral Diversity in Relation to the Recency of HIV-1C Infection in Botswana.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assays used for HIV cross-sectional incidence testing can misclassify some individuals with nonrecent HIV infection as recently infected, overestimating HIV incidence. We analyzed the frequency and factors associated with false-recent misclassification on subjects from Quangxi, China known to have long-term infection using the limited antigen-avidity assay (LAg-Avidity). Stored samples from treatment-naive individuals from Guangxi, China were tested using the LAg-Avidity. A total of 362 samples from individuals known to be infected 2 to 13.5 years were tested and the false-recent rate (FRR), the frequency of samples with a positive result, was determined at different cutoff values of the assay. Additionally, factors associated with misclassification were determined. The FRR of the LAg-Avidity was 1.1% (4/362) using a cutoff of 1.5 normalized optical density units (OD-n). All four samples had viral loads >1,000 copies/ml. Using a cutoff of 3.0 OD-n the FRR was 5.5% (20/362), with four samples having viral loads <1,000 copies/ml. Factors associated with a higher odds of misclassification were female gender (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.0-56.4) and being a female sex worker (OR 31.3, 95% CI 4.0-242). At the higher cutoff, being of Zhuang decent, relative to Han, had higher odds of misclassification (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.99-19.0). The LAg-Avidity assay had a low FRR in this Chinese population. Further investigations of the higher frequency of low LAg-Avidity results seen in female sex workers and individuals of Zhuang descent should be explored in a larger study.
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.