ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2020
Three Years of Shared Service HIV Nucleic Acid Testing for Public Health Laboratories: Worthwhile for HIV-1 but Not for HIV-2.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2020. 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.
- Highlights From the 2019 HIV Diagnostics Conference: Optimizing Testing for HIV, STIs, and HCV.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Routine HIV Test Results in 6 US Clinical Laboratories Using the Recommended Laboratory HIV Testing Algorithm With Geenius HIV 1/2 Supplemental Assay.Sexually transmitted diseases · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2016, HIV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT) was added to a shared service program that conducts HIV-1 NAT for public health laboratories performing the recommended algorithm for diagnosing HIV. Here, we evaluate the usefulness of HIV-2 NAT in this program as compared with HIV-1 NAT.
methodsSpecimens eligible for HIV-1 NAT were reactive on an HIV-1/2 antibody or antigen/antibody initial test and nonreactive or indeterminate on a supplemental antibody test or were reactive for HIV-1 antigen-only on an HIV-1/2 antigen/antibody initial test. Specimens eligible for HIV-2 NAT were reactive on an initial test, HIV-2 indeterminate or HIV indeterminate on a supplemental antibody test and had no detectable HIV-1 RNA or were reactive for HIV-2 antibody on an HIV-1/2 antigen/antibody test, and this reactivity was not confirmed with a supplemental antibody assay. All specimens were tested in a reference laboratory using APTIMA HIV-1 qualitative RNA and/or a validated qualitative HIV-2 RNA real-time PCR assay.
resultsDuring 2016 to 2019, HIV-1 RNA was detected in 234 (14%) of 1731 specimens tested. HIV-2 RNA was not detected in 52 specimens tested. Median time from specimen collection to reporting of HIV-1 and HIV-2 NAT results by year ranged from 9 to 10 days and from 22 to 27 days, respectively. Two specimens with HIV-2 indeterminate results on a supplemental antibody test had detectable HIV-1 RNA.
conclusionsA shared service model for HIV-1 NAT is both feasible and beneficial for public health laboratories. However, because no HIV-2 infections were detected, our data suggest that this program should reconsider the usefulness of HIV-2 NAT testing.
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.