ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2020
Does antiretroviral therapy use affect the accuracy of HIV rapid diagnostic assays? Experience from a demographic health and surveillance site in rural South Africa.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value of Assessing Self-Reported and Biological Indicators of Outcomes in Evaluating HIV Programs.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are the mainstay of HIV diagnosis in the developing world but might have poor sensitivity among individuals taking antiretroviral therapy (ART). We leveraged a home-based HIV testing program linked to clinical data to compare the sensitivity of RDTs between individuals using versus not using ART. Field workers tested 6802 individuals using 2 HIV RDTs, which were compared to a single HIV immunoassay tested on dried blood spots. Approximately 5% (371/6802) tested positive by immunoassay, of whom 157 (42%) were currently on ART. The sensitivity of the Abon RDT among those never versus currently on ART was 91.6% (95% CI 88.3-94.3) and 96.6% (95% CI 88.3-94.3), respectively, and 95.4% (95% CI 92.8-97.3) versus 99.3% (95% CI 95.2-99.7) for the Advanced Quality assay. We report similar sensitivity of RDTs in ART-naïve and ART-experienced individuals, which mitigates concerns about their use among treated individuals in population-based epidemiologic surveys and those transferring care.
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.