ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2017
Short Communication: Comparison of Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Assay Performance for Measuring HIV Incidence.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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
- Comparing Approaches for Estimating Counterfactual HIV Incidence Among Populations With High Vulnerability to HIV in Lima, Peru: A Multi-Study Comparative Analysis.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Longitudinal evaluation of HIV-1 LAg incidence assay and proficiency panel stability for external quality assurance.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Developing and evaluating a novel rapid test for recent HIV-1 infection: comparison with commercial LAg-EIA assays.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Prediction of recent HIV-1 infections using Shannon entropy analysis of HIV-1 group-specific antigen protein sequence.Virology journal · 2026Article
- A systematic review of limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay for detection of recent HIV-1 infection to expand supported applications.Journal of virus eradication · 2022Review
- Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.PloS one · 2019Article
- Development of an international external quality assurance program for HIV-1 incidence using the Limiting Antigen Avidity assay.PloS one · 2019Article
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
Accurate methods for cross-sectional incidence estimation are needed for HIV prevention research. The Limiting Antigen Avidity (LAg-Avidity) assay has been marketed by two vendors, Maxim Biomedical and Sedia BioSciences Corporation. Performance differences between the two versions of the assay are unknown. We tested a total 1,410 treatment-naive samples with both versions of the assay. The samples came from 176 seroconverters from the Zimbabwe Hormonal Contraception and HIV Study. The correlation between the two versions of the assay was 0.93 for the optical density (OD) and 0.86 for the normalized OD. As the difference was more pronounced for the normalized OD, the difference in assays can be attributed to the calibrators. The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI), the average time individuals infected <2 years appear recently infected, was determined for both versions using an assay cutoff of 1.5 OD-n alone or in combination with a viral load cutoff of >1,000 copies/ml. The MDRI was 137 days for Sedia and 157 days for Maxim, with a difference of 20 days (95% CI 11-30). The MDRIs decreased to 102 and 120 days with the inclusion of a viral load cutoff of >1,000 copies/ml. These results imply that use of the Sedia LAg-Avidity will result in estimates of incidence ∼13% lower than those using the Maxim LAg-Avidity.
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.