ArticlePloS one2020
Risks of requiring a dedicated molecular specimen for HIV diagnosis and a potential strategy for mitigation.
Article in PloS one, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reflex Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Type 1 RNA Testing Enables Timely Differentiation of False-Positive Results From Acute HIV Infection.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHIV screening (i.e. antigen/antibody) tests are followed by a supplemental (i.e. antibody-only) if the screen is positive. Discrepant results can result from two scenarios: a false-positive screening test or acute HIV infection. These scenarios can be distinguished by a molecular HIV test, but due to contamination concerns, our laboratory recently implemented a policy requiring a second specimen dedicated for molecular HIV testing. Our objective was to (1) characterize the effect of this policy on the time-to-diagnosis for patients with discrepant screening and supplemental test results, and (2) explore "strength of positivity" as an interim predictor of screening test accuracy while awaiting confirmatory test results.
methodsData from our laboratory information system, electronic health record, and instrument logs were used to collate data for all HIV testing performed at Barnes-Jewish Hospital (BJH) between January 1, 2014 and October 18, 2017.
resultsRequiring a dedicated specimen for molecular testing significantly increased the time-to-diagnosis for patients with discrepant screening and supplemental HIV tests (p = 0.0084). This policy also contributed to loss-to-followup, with 0/35 discrepant cases lost-to-followup prior to policy implementation compared to 2/10 after implementation. However, by optimizing the signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratio of the screening test, we were able to more accurately distinguish false-positives from acute-HIV prior to molecular testing (sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 89%).
conclusionsWe propose utilizing quantitative fourth-generation assay results (S/CO) ratios as a predictor of infection true positivity in situations where the screening assay is reactive but the supplemental test is negative and confirmatory molecular results are not immediately available.
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.