ArticleVirology journal2018
Performance comparison of new Veris and Xpert random access HIV-1 RNA quantification assays.
Article in Virology journal, 2018. 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.
- Article
- Performance Comparison of Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load Assay and Roche Taqman and Abbott M2000 RT in Bamako, Mali.Journal of AIDS & clinical research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent systems for Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) monitoring allow one-by-one analysis and fast turn-around-time for results. VL measurement on two rapid recently commercialized systems, GeneXpert (Cepheid) and Veris (Beckman Coulter) was compared to classical methods.
methodsPlasma specimen from HIV-1 (group M) positive patients (n = 129) initially quantified with Abbott RealTime HIV-1 and Generic HIV-VL Biocentric assays were retrospectively tested with GeneXpert and Veris.
resultsValid results on all techniques were obtained for 116/129 specimens composed of 89 Abbott quantifiable VL (38 B, 51 non-B subtypes) [range: 2.09-7.20 log cp/mL] and 27 plasma (9 B, 18 non-B) with Abbott-VL below the limit of quantification (LLQ). All techniques showed good correlation and agreement with a lowest Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.86. Compared to Abbott, the mean bias was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.25-0.45), 0.44 (0.36-0.53) and - 0.04 (- 0.13-0.05) for Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. A difference over 0.5 log cp/mL between VL-quantification of the same sample was observed for 19, 9 and 6 samples with Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. No influence of HIV-1 subtypes on VL was identified. Among 29 samples below LLQ on Abbott, only one was detected and quantified with the Veris assay (38 cp/mL), none with Cepheid.
conclusionBoth random access systems from Cepheid and Beckman appear well designed for quantifying plasma HIV-1 VL, are easy to handle, fast and fully automated. The slight observed differences suggest to follow the current guidelines recommending the use of the same technique over time for patient viral load monitoring.
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.