ArticlePloS one2020
Performance evaluation of eight rapid tests to detect HIV infection: A comparative study from Brazil.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical diagnostic accuracy of the HIV rapid test ACCU-TELL anti-HIV 1 + 2 in sub-Saharan African region.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of community-based voluntary counseling and testing for HIV in Turin: insights from the fast-track cities initiative - a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Continuous quality evaluation of the Asanté rapid test for recent infection for robust kit lot quality verification.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Biomarkers for Assessment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and its Co-Infection with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Viruses: A Comprehensive Review.Iranian journal of pathology · 2023Review
- Evaluation of HIV-1 rapid diagnostic tests in the context of viral genetic diversity in Libreville (Gabon).The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid tests (RTs), also known as point-of-care tests, usually release results within 30 minutes with no need for a qualified staff, equipment, or laboratory structure. The Brazilian Ministry of Health published a resolution in 2013, recommending the use of RTs for the diagnosis of HIV infection, where one positive RT must be followed by another different RT. This was meant to increase the chance of proper diagnosis in specific settings and special populations. However, data comparing and validating the different HIV RTs available in Brazil are scarce. Therefore, the present study seeks to evaluate eight anti-HIV RTs available in the Brazilian market regarding their analytical performance: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy. We also evaluated the agreement between kits (Kappa index) and the quality of the reading pattern of the tests. This was an observational, analytical, and concordance study, in which previously defined positive and negative samples, based on their serological pattern for anti-HIV antibodies (chemiluminescent immunoassay-ECLIA-used as screening and Western Blot used as the confirmatory test) were tested. Analytical performance and Kappa index were calculated, considering a 95% CI and p<0.05. This study identified differences in the performances of the eight tested kits. Six out of eight RTs showed good performance and can be used in the routine laboratory and health care units as screening tests. Regarding the quality of the RT band reading pattern, two brands had several samples showing quite faint bands, thus compromising its use in clinical and laboratory settings.
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.