ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Evaluation of Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay for the confirmatory and differential diagnosis of HIV-1/HIV-2 in Japan and reliability of the Geenius Reader in the diagnosis of HIV-2.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in HIV Diagnosis Algorithm: Experience of the Confirmation Laboratory.Journal of tropical medicine · 2025Article
- [Comparison of two methodologies for HIV confirmation in a Blood Bank].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
- Article
- Are Confirmatory Assays Reliable for HIV-1/HIV-2 Infection Differentiation? A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNEW LAV BLOT I and II (LAV I and LAV II), they were only option for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) confirmatory test, following HIV screening test using HIV Ag/Ab combination test in Japan. We evaluated the performance of Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay (Geenius), both as a confirmatory test and for differentiation between HIV-1 and HIV-2, in comparison with LAV I and LAV II.
methodsEighty-nine HIV-1-positive plasma specimens, one anti-HIV-1 low-titer performance panel, 10 seroconversion panels, and two anti-HIV-1/2 combo performance panels were tested. The results were read with the Geenius Reader and by visual reading.
resultsAll 89 HIV-1-positive plasma specimens were identified as HIV-1-positive using Geenius; this 100% success rate was superior to that with LAV I (95.5% using WHO criteria, 98.9% using CDC criteria). The HIV-1-positive specimens showed low cross-reactivity with HIV-2 lines in Geenius. The sensitivity of Geenius for HIV-1 detection was the same as or greater than that of LAV I, but less than that of Genscreen HIV Ag-Ab ULT, in our analysis of the commercial performance and seroconversion panels. In contrast, five of the 13 HIV-2-positive specimens that had been identified as HIV-positive untypable by visual reading because of their cross-reactivity to HIV-1 lines were successfully identified by the Geenius Reader as HIV-2-positive with cross-reactivity.
conclusionsGeenius provides strong performance for HIV confirmatory tests and HIV-1 differentiation tests. However, when visual reading is used, its performance in HIV-2 differentiation is less reliable. Because HIV-2 infection has been sporadically reported in Japan, the use of the Geenius Reader is preferable to ensure more reliable HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation.
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.