ArticleAIDS research and therapy2016
Assessing the sensitivity and specificity of First Response HIV-1-2 test kit with whole blood and serum samples: a cross-sectional study.
Article in AIDS research and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative analysis of the different HIV testing techniques used in Zambia: data from a clinical performance study.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Nucleic acid amplification testing using dried blood spots to confirm the diagnosis of HIV-1 in adults.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2024Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of TB and HIV coinfections among adult inmates with presumptive pulmonary TB in a Kenyan prison.Tropical medicine and health · 2024Article
- Rapid tests should be used with caution for HIV-1 primary infection screening.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Approach with Harmonized Multinational Datasets for Enhanced Prediction of Hypothyroidism in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review of HIV Self Testing Technologies and Promising Approaches for the Next Generation.Biosensors · 2023Review
- Evaluating Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid Tests in Adult Human Immunodeficiency Virus Diagnostic Strategies: A Côte d'Ivoire Modeling Analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- A Commitment to HIV Diagnostic Accuracy - a comment on "Towards more accurate HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-site evaluation of HIV RDTs and risk factors for false positives 'and' HIV misdiagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa: a performance of diagnostic algorithms at six testing sites".Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Article
- HIV Testing After a First Positive Rapid Diagnostic Test: A Role for Nucleic Acid Testing?Open forum infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Congenital Chagas Disease in the United States: Cost Savings through Maternal Screening.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2018Article
- HIV misdiagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa: performance of diagnostic algorithms at six testing sites.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2017Review
- Prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum and non-P. falciparum infections in a highland district in Ghana, and the influence of HIV and sickle cell disease.Malaria journal · 2017Article
- Towards more accurate HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-site evaluation of HIV RDTs and risk factors for false positives.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Rapid diagnostic Test (RDT) kits are the preferred assays for HIV testing in many countries. Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission, Know Your Status Campaigns, Blood-Safety, Voluntary Counseling and Testing are major strategies adapted to control transmission of the virus and the pivot of these interventions is either screening or diagnosing individuals through testing. There are reports of inconsistent sensitivity and specificity with whole blood and serum samples collected from the same individual. Little is known about the diagnostic characteristics of First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit, used as a single test kit in national HIV prevention and control programmes. The debate has always centered on choosing between whole blood and serum in a case where a single test kit that runs on only blood specimen will be used for testing. The variations in specificities and sensitivities with whole blood and serum samples imply that some individuals who might be true positives will be missed and elude care. This study determined the best blood-based specimen type (whole blood or serum) that improves performance of First Response HIV RDT kit in detecting HIV-specific antibodies.
methodsA hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 280 HIV infected and non-infected patients from May 2015 to June 2015. Blood samples from each participant were separated into whole blood and serum, and tested on First Response HIV-1-2 kits (Premier Medical Corporation Ltd., Kachigam, India) using Electro-chemi-luminescence assay (ECLIA) as reference assay.
resultsFirst Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit showed 100 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity with whole blood specimen and 100 % sensitivity and 82.86 % specificity with serum specimen for the detection of HIV-1. The positive and negative predictive values were 100, 100 and 85.35, 82.86 % for whole blood and serum respectively.
conclusionWhole blood specimen(s) from an individual have higher specificity, positive and negative predictive values than serum. Whole blood is the primary specimen to use on First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit when screening peripheral blood for HIV-1-specific antibodies.
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.