ArticlePloS one2019
Can visual interpretation of NucliSens graphs reduce the need for repeat viral load testing?
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Zimbabwe, viral load (VL) testing for people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy is performed at the National Microbiology Reference Laboratory using a NucliSens machine. Anecdotal evidence has shown that invalid graphs for "Target Not Detectable (TND)" will upon repeat VL testing produce a valid result for virus not detected, therefore removing the need to repeat the test. This needs formal assessment.
objectivesTo determine i) intra- and inter-rater agreement of the visual interpretation of NucliSens graphs (Target Detectable [TD], TND and No Line [NL]) between two laboratory scientists and ii) sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the NucliSens graphs compared with repeat VL results.
methodCross sectional study using secondary data. Two laboratory scientists independently rated graphs one week apart for intra-rater agreement and compared final ratings with each other for inter-rater agreement. Consensus interpretations of graphs were compared with repeat VL results. Kappa coefficients were used to obtain measures of agreement.
resultsThere were 562 patients with NucliSens graphs and repeat VL. Kappa scores were: 0.98 (Scientist A); 0.99 (Scientist B); 0.96 (Scientist A versus Scientist B); and 0.65 (NucliSens graphs versus VL). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for graphs compared with VL were 71%, 92%, 79% and 89% respectively.
conclusionIntra-and inter-rater agreements were almost perfect. The negative predictive value translates to a false negative rate of 11%. If repeat VL testing is not done, the clinical consequences need to be balanced against cost savings and the risks outweigh the benefits.
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.