Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33428663›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

HIV false positive screening serology due to sample contamination reduced by a dedicated sample and platform in a high prevalence environment.

Michael A Linström, Wolfgang Preiser, Nokwazi N Nkosi, Helena W Vreede, Stephen N J Korsman, Annalise E Zemlin, Gert U van Zyl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Michael A LinströmNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-7509-1010
Wolfgang PreiserNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Nokwazi N NkosiNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4554-180X
Helena W VreedeNational Health Laboratory Service, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stephen N J KorsmanNational Health Laboratory Service, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-1667-4363
Annalise E ZemlinNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-4679
Gert U van ZylNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3021-5101

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated testing of HIV serology on clinical chemistry analysers has become common. High sample throughput, high HIV prevalence and instrument design could all contribute to sample cross-contamination by microscopic droplet carry-over from seropositive samples to seronegative samples resulting in false positive low-reactive results. Following installation of an automated shared platform at our public health laboratory, we noted an increase in low reactive and false positive results. Subsequently, we investigated HIV serology screening test results for a period of 21 months. Of 485 initially low positive or equivocal samples 411 (85%) tested negative when retested using an independently collected sample. As creatinine is commonly requested with HIV screening, we used it as a proxy for concomitant clinical chemistry testing, indicating that a sample had likely been tested on a shared high-throughput instrument. The contamination risk was stratified between samples passing the clinical chemistry module first versus samples bypassing it. The odds ratio for a false positive HIV serology result was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.69-9.97) when creatinine level was determined first, versus not, on the same sample, suggesting contamination on the chemistry analyser. We subsequently issued a notice to obtain dedicated samples for HIV serology and added a suffix to the specimen identifier which restricted testing to a dedicated instrument. Low positive and false positive rates were determined before and after these interventions. Based on measured rates in low positive samples we estimate that before the intervention, of 44 117 HIV screening serology samples, 753 (1.71%) were false positive, declining to 48 of 7 072 samples (0.68%) post-intervention (p<0.01). Our findings showed that automated high throughput shared diagnostic platforms are at risk of generating false-positive HIV test results, due to sample contamination and that measures are required to address this. Restricting HIV serology samples to a dedicated platform resolved this problem.

Indexed as

AIDS SerodiagnosisHIV-1HIV InfectionsMass ScreeningFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMalePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID33428663
PMCPMC7799780

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.