ArticlePloS one2020
Sensitivity and specificity of rapid hepatitis C antibody assays in freshly collected whole blood, plasma and serum samples: A multicentre prospective study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Impact of Active Versus Passive Surveillance on Hepatitis C Virus Testing Uptake, Diagnosis and Linkage to Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of Hepatitis C Virus Transmission Through Endoscopy Procedures in the Country of Georgia.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Article
- 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated performance of two hepatitis C virus (HCV) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) performed by intended users in resource-limited settings.
methodsTesting was conducted at three facilities in two countries (Georgia, Cambodia) using matched fingerstick whole blood, plasma and serum samples. Investigational RDTs were compared with a composite reference standard (CRS) comprised of three laboratory tests, and a reference RDT.
resultsIn matched samples from 489 HCV positive and 967 HCV negative participants, specificity with both investigational RDTs was high using either reference method (≥98.4% in all sample types). Sensitivity was lower in whole blood versus plasma and serum for both RDTs compared with the CRS (86.5-91.4% vs 97.5-98.0% and 97.3-97.1%) and reference RDT (93.6-97.8% vs 100% and 99.4%). Sensitivity improved when considering only samples with detectable HCV viral load.
conclusionSensitivity was highest in serum and plasma versus whole blood. The World Health Organization prequalification criterion (≥98%) was narrowly missed by both RDTs in serum, and one in plasma, possibly due to the intended user factor. Performance in whole blood was considered adequate, given potential roles of HCV infection history, improved sensitivity with detectable viral load and performance similarities to the reference RDT.
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.