Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33017442›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Field evaluation of capillary blood and oral-fluid HIV self-tests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Serge Tonen-Wolyec, Angèle Sarassoro, Jérémie Muwonga Masidi, Elie Twite Banza, Gaëtan Nsiku Dikumbwa, Dieu Merci Maseke Matondo, Apolinaire Kilundu, Luc Kamanga Lukusa, Salomon Batina-Agasa, Laurent Bélec

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Antiviral Effect ofCurrent pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Preferences for oral-World journal of methodology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Serge Tonen-WolyecEcole Doctorale Régionale D'Afrique Centrale en Infectiologie Tropicale, Franceville, Gabon.ORCID 0000-0002-7734-7729
Angèle SarassoroMinistry of Health, Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire.ORCID 0000-0003-3359-3140
Jérémie Muwonga MasidiDepartment of Clinical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Elie Twite BanzaNational AIDS and STI Control Program, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Gaëtan Nsiku DikumbwaNational AIDS and STI Control Program, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Dieu Merci Maseke MatondoNational AIDS and STI Control Program, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Apolinaire KilunduNational AIDS and STI Control Program, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Luc Kamanga LukusaNational AIDS and STI Control Program, Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Salomon Batina-AgasaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Kisangani, Kisangani, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Laurent BélecLaboratory of Virology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) is an additional approach to increasing uptake of HIV testing services. The practicability and accuracy of and the preference for the capillary blood self-test (Exacto Test HIV) versus the oral fluid self-test (OraQuick HIV self-test) were compared among untrained individuals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study (2019) used face-to-face, tablet-based, structured questionnaires in a facility-based HIVST approach. Volunteers from the general public who were at high risk of HIV infection, who were between 18 and 49 years of age, and who had signed an informed consent form were eligible for the study. The successful performance and correct interpretation of the self-test results were the main outcomes of the practicability evaluation. The successful performance of the HIV self-test was conditioned by the presence of the control band. The sensitivity and specificity of the participant-interpreted results compared to the laboratory results were estimated for accuracy. Preference for either type of self-test was assessed. Logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with participants' preference.

resultsA total of 528 participants were included in this survey. The rate of successful performance of the HIV self-tests was high, with the blood test (99.6%) and the oral-fluid test (99.4%) yielding an absolute difference of 0.2% (95% CI: -1.8 to 1.1; P = 0.568). The rate of correct interpretation of the HIV self-test results was 84.4% with the blood test versus 83.8% with the oral-fluid test (difference = 0.6; 95% CI: -0.2 to 1.7; P = 0.425). Misinterpretation (25.4% for the blood test and 25.6% for the oral-fluid test) and inability to interpret (20.4% for the blood test and 21.1% for the oral-fluid test) test results were significantly more prevalent with invalid tests. The Exacto Test HIV self-test and the OraQuick HIV self-test showed 100% and 99.2% sensitivity, and 98.9% and 98.1% specificity, respectively. Preference for oral-fluid-based HIVST was greater than that for blood-based HIVST (85.6% versus 78.6%; P = 0.008). Preference for the blood test was greater among participants with a university education (86.1%; aOR = 2.4 [95% CI: 1.1 to 4.9]; P = 0.016), a higher risk of HIV infection (88.1%; aOR = 2.3 [95% CI: 1.0 to 5.3]; P = 0.047), and knowledge about the existence of HIVST (89.3%; aOR = 2.2 [95% CI: 1.0 to 5.0]; P = 0.05).

conclusionOur field observations demonstrate that blood-based and oral-fluid-based HIVST are both practicable approaches with a high and comparable rate of accuracy in the study setting. Although preference for the oral-fluid test was generally greater, preference for the blood test was greater among participants with a university education, a high risk of HIV infection, and knowledge about the existence of HIVST. Both approaches seem complementary in the sense that users can choose the type of self-test that best suits them for a similar result. Taken together, our observations support the use of the two HIV self-test kits in the DRC.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAIDS SerodiagnosisBody FluidsCross-Sectional StudiesDemocratic Republic of the CongoFemaleHIV AntibodiesHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouthPatient ParticipationSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesHIV Antibodies

Identifiers

PMID33017442
PMCPMC7535027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.