ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Study To Evaluate the Performance of a Point-of-Care Whole-Blood HIV Viral Load Test (SAMBA II HIV-1 Semi-Q Whole Blood).
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Point-of-Care With Standard Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Viral Load Monitoring in Nigeria.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Trial
- Enhancing therapy monitoring and effectiveness for HIV patients in China's border regions through a healthcare consortium: an interrupted time series analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Immunomagnetic Sample Preparation Targeting Host- and Viral-Derived Antigens for HIV-1 Isolation from Limited Plasma Volumes.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- The Future of Gene Expression Studies in HIV Research.Current HIV research · 2025Review
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 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Remote areas of many low and middle income (LMI) countries have poor access to HIV viral load (HIV VL) testing. The SAMBA II (simple amplification-based assay) Semi-Q whole-blood test (Diagnostics for the Real World [DRW], Cambridge, UK) is a point-of-care assay, which uses leucodepletion technology to allow whole-blood testing in remote settings. A total of 1,540 consecutive HIV-positive clinic patients in Cameroon (250), United Kingdom (633), Ukraine (412), and Zimbabwe (245) donated venous blood (all countries) and finger prick blood (all except UK) for testing on SAMBA II. SAMBA II results were compared with simultaneous plasma results on the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (Abbott Molecular, Des Plaines, IL) viral load assay and interpreted as either <1,000 RNA copies/ml or ≥1,000 RNA copies/ml. For 1,528 venous whole-blood samples tested on SAMBA II, overall percent agreement with the reference test at a cutoff HIV VL of ≥1,000 copies/ml was 96.9% (1,480/1,528; 95% confidence interval [CI], 95.9% to 97.7%), negative percent agreement was 97.7% (1,259/1,289; 95% CI, 96.7% to 98.4%), and positive percent agreement was 92.5% (221/239; 95% CI, 88.4% to 95.5%). For 854 finger prick samples, there was 95.0% (811/854; 95% CI, 93.3% to 96.3%) overall percent agreement, 98.0% (625/638; 95% CI, 96.5% to 98.9%) negative percent agreement, and 86.1% (186/216; 95% CI, 80.8% to 90.4%) positive percent agreement. These rose to 93.5% (82.1% to 98.6%), 97.6% (95.6% to 98.8%), and 95.6% (93.3% to 97.3%) after exclusion of aberrant results from the Ukraine center. These results show a high level of agreement between SAMBA-II and a laboratory-based assay. SAMBA-II has a performance that is suitable to use as a VL point-of-care assay in remote 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.