ArticlePloS one2018
Comparative evaluation of the Geenius HIV 1/2 Confirmatory Assay and the HIV-1 and HIV-2 Western blots in the Japanese population.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different approaches to HIV confirmation: a survey of three Italian regions.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Outpatient Testing for HIV in Italy, 2018-2023-Preliminary Data.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Are Confirmatory Assays Reliable for HIV-1/HIV-2 Infection Differentiation? A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Novel Criteria for Diagnosing Acute and Early Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in a Multinational Study of Early Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay for the confirmatory and differential diagnosis of HIV-1/HIV-2 in Japan and reliability of the Geenius Reader in the diagnosis of HIV-2.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Repeated false reactive ADVIA centaur® and bio-rad Geenius™ HIV tests in a patient self-administering anabolic steroids.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- High level of HIV false positives using EIA-based algorithm in survey: Importance of confirmatory testing.PloS one · 2020Article
- Estimation of the Seroconversion Duration of HIV-1 Antibodies in Individuals With Recent Infection in China.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of earlier HIV infection is essential for treatment and prevention. Currently, confirmation tests of HIV infection in Japan are performed using Western blot (WB), but WB has several limitations including low sensitivity and cross-reactivity between HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies. To address these problems, a new HIV testing algorithm and a more reliable confirmation and HIV-1/2 differentiation assay are required. The Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay (Geenius) has recently been approved and recommended for use in the revised guidelines for diagnosis of HIV infection by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (USA). We made comprehensive comparison of the performance of Geenius and the Bio-Rad NEW LAV BLOT 1 and 2 (NLB 1 and 2) which are WB kits for HIV-1 and HIV-2, respectively, to examine if Geenius is a suitable alternative to these WB assays which are now being used in HIV testing in Japan. A total of 166 HIV-1 positive samples (146 from patients with established HIV-1 infection and 20 from patients with acute infection), five HIV-1 seroconversion panels containing 21 samples and 30 HIV-2 positive samples were used. In addition, a total of 140 HIV negative samples containing 10 false-positives on screening tests were examined. The sensitivity of Geenius and NLB 1 for HIV-1 positive samples was 99.3% and 98.6%, respectively. Geenius provided more positive results in the samples from acute infections and detected positivity 0 to 32 days earlier in seroconversion panels than NLB 1. NLB 2 gave positive results in 12.3% of HIV-1 positive samples. The sensitivity of both Geenius and NLB 2 for HIV-2 positive samples was 100%. The specificity of Geenius, NLB 1 and NLB 2 was 98.5%, 81.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Geenius is an attractive alternative to WB for confirmation and differentiation of HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections. The adaptation of Geenius to the HIV testing algorithm may be advantageous for rapid diagnosis and the reduction of testing costs.
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.