SynthesisPloS one2019
Systematic review of the accuracy of plasma preparation tubes for HIV viral load testing.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Development of a Standardized Quality Assessment Material to Support XpertDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Expanding access to HIV viral load testing is essential to improving the care and treatment of people living with HIV/AIDS and ending the AIDS epidemic. Though significant investments have been made in the past five years, many high burden, low resource countries continue to have viral load access rates below 50%. Plasma preparation tubes (PPTs) can simplify storage, transport, and preparation of plasma used for viral load testing. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of plasma preparation tubes for HIV viral load testing. Study results regarding the accuracy of PPT viral load measurements across various storage and transportation conditions were examined. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria. The review identified 16 studies using PPTs with data from 6,141 individuals from 1995 to 2014. Overall the quality of evidence was rated as moderate, with unclear applicability for studies evaluating viral load assays that are no longer commercially available. Significantly elevated viral load results (>0.3 log copies/ml difference) have been observed with PPTs; however, when manufacturer handling instructions are followed, when plasma is aliquoted into a secondary tube, or when PPTs are centrifuged prior to testing, PPT results only differed from standard EDTA plasma testing using commercially available viral load assays by a range on average of -0.03 to +0.08 log copies/ml across studies. Although spuriously elevated viral load results have been observed with PPTs, following proper sample handing techniques have been shown to provide accurate results. PPTs, therefore, provide a high quality alternative specimen type for countries seeking solutions to infrastructure and specimen transportation challenges in an effort to scale-up viral load testing and achieve 90-90-90 targets.
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.