ArticleTransfusion2020
Comparison of two nucleic acid amplification technology systems for detection of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus.
Article in Transfusion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Safety of Nucleic Acid Amplification Technology Combined With Serological Tests for Screening Blood Donors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Pooled it
- Hepatitis B virus infection with high HBsAg and undetectable DNA levels in untreated blood donors: Viral mechanisms and transfusion safety implications.Transfusion · 2026Article
- The impact of non-disclosure of HIV status and antiretroviral therapy on HIV recency testing and incidence algorithms.Vox sanguinis · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are endemic in South Africa while hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is rare. Two nucleic acid amplification technology platforms, the Procleix Ultrio Elite assay on the Panther instrument (Elite) and the cobas MPX assay on the cobas 6800 or 8800 system (MPX), are used worldwide. In 2015 these were evaluated in South African context. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThe sensitivity of HIV, HBV, and HCV was evaluated using reference panels and 2-fold dilutions of 51 positive plasma samples tested in 12 to 24 replicates. The 95% and 50% lower limits of detection (LOD) were estimated by probit analysis and window period (WP) risk days by the Weusten model. Specificity was established by testing 3646 blood donations individually and instrument performance by evaluating all runs.
resultsSpecificity was 99.94% for MPX and 99.97% for Elite. The following 95% LODs (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated for MPX and Elite, respectively: HBV, 17.8 (10.9-33.9) and 47.9 (29.1-92.4) cp/mL; HCV, 21.9 (15.3-34.6) and 13.8 (8.9-24.0) cp/mL; and HIV, 8.3 (5.5-14.7) and 10.4 (6.9-18.2) cp/mL. On SA HBV and HIV dilution panels, relative sensitivity (range) of MPX was 3.20 (1.26-6.50) and 1.42 (0.26-2.72) fold higher than Elite. Downtime on cobas 6800 was 26 hours vs 6.6 hours on Panther (P < .001). We estimated infectious WPs for HBV, HCV, and HIV-1 at 13.8, 1.8, and 2.6 days for Elite and 10.3, 2.1, and 2.4 days for MPX.
conclusionAlthough MPX was significantly more sensitive for HBV, Elite was implemented due to instrument reliability during evaluation.
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.