ArticleJournal of medical virology2019
Field performance of the INSTI HIV-1/-2 antibody test in two South African antenatal clinics.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2019. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of seroprevalence of human immunodeficiency virus serological markers among pregnant women in Africa, 1984-2020.World journal of critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Review of HIV Self Testing Technologies and Promising Approaches for the Next Generation.Biosensors · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This was a prospective study that assessed field performance of the INSTI HIV-1/-2 antibody test (INSTI test) in two antenatal clinics in South Africa (SA). INSTI test was evaluated against rapid tests used at these clinics, and pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) performed for individuals with negative rapid tests. Three hundred and eighty-six pregnant women were enrolled; 334 (86.5%) with negative results on the screening rapid test, and 52 (13.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2-17.3%) with positive results on screening and confirmatory rapid tests. INSTI test yielded the same results as other rapid tests in all participants, thus showing a 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.2-100.0%) and specificity (95% CI: 98.9-100.0%). Pooled NAAT was performed for 290 participants who had negative rapid tests, and yielded negative results in all pools. These data show excellent field performance of the INSTI test, and highlight that this test can be implementedat SA clinics.
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.