ArticlePloS one2017
Self-reported HIV-positive status but subsequent HIV-negative test result using rapid diagnostic testing algorithms among seven sub-Saharan African military populations.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brief Report: Self-Reported HIV-Positive Status but Subsequent HIV-Negative Test Results in Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment Survey Participants-11 Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2015-2018.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Approach to Assuring Quality of Laboratory Testing in HIV Surveys: Lessons Learned From the Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment Project.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HIV rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) combined in an algorithm are the current standard for HIV diagnosis in many sub-Saharan African countries, and extensive laboratory testing has confirmed HIV RDTs have excellent sensitivity and specificity. However, false-positive RDT algorithm results have been reported due to a variety of factors, such as suboptimal quality assurance procedures and inaccurate interpretation of results. We conducted HIV serosurveys in seven sub-Saharan African military populations and recorded the frequency of personnel self-reporting HIV positivity, but subsequently testing HIV-negative during the serosurvey. The frequency of individuals who reported they were HIV-positive but subsequently tested HIV-negative using RDT algorithms ranged from 3.3 to 91.1%, suggesting significant rates of prior false-positive HIV RDT algorithm results, which should be confirmed using biological testing across time in future studies. Simple measures could substantially reduce false-positive results, such as greater adherence to quality assurance guidelines and prevalence-specific HIV testing algorithms as described in the World Health Organization's HIV testing guidelines. Other measures to improve RDT algorithm specificity include classifying individuals with weakly positive test lines as HIV indeterminate and retesting. While expansion of HIV testing in resource-limited countries is critical to identifying HIV-infected individuals for appropriate care and treatment, careful attention to potential causes of false HIV-positive results are needed to prevent the significant medical, psychological, and fiscal costs resulting from individuals receiving a false-positive HIV diagnosis.
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.