Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35614397›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

Sensitivity and specificity of OraQuick® HIV self-test compared to a 4th generation laboratory reference standard algorithm in urban and rural Zambia.

Melissa Neuman, Alwyn Mwinga, Kezia Kapaku, Lucheka Sigande, Caroline Gotsche, Miriam Taegtmeyer, Russell Dacombe, Kwitaka Maluzi, Barry Kosloff, Cheryl Johnson and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Promoting STI self-testing through HIV self-testing.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

13 authors.

Melissa NeumanMRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Melissa.Neuman@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8870-6504
Alwyn MwingaZambart, University of Zambia School of Public Health, Ridgeway Campus, Off Nationalist Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Kezia KapakuZambart, University of Zambia School of Public Health, Ridgeway Campus, Off Nationalist Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Lucheka SigandeZambart, University of Zambia School of Public Health, Ridgeway Campus, Off Nationalist Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Caroline GotscheLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Miriam TaegtmeyerLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Pl, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Russell DacombeLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Pl, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Kwitaka MaluziZambart, University of Zambia School of Public Health, Ridgeway Campus, Off Nationalist Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Barry KosloffMRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Cheryl JohnsonWorld Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, Geneva, Switzerland.
Karin HatzoldPSI-South Africa, 70, 7th Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Elizabeth L CorbettMRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Helen AylesMRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Wellcome Trust 200901/Z/16/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) has the potential to increase coverage of HIV testing, but concerns exist about intended users' ability to correctly perform and interpret tests, especially in poor communities with low literacy rates. We assessed the clinical performance of the 2016 prototype OraQuick® HIV Self-Test in rural and urban communities in Zambia to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the test compared to the national HIV rapid diagnostic test (RDT) algorithm and a laboratory reference standard using 4th generation enzyme immunoassays and HIV RNA detection.

methodsParticipants were recruited from randomly selected rural and urban households and one urban health facility between May 2016 and June 2017. Participants received a brief demonstration of the self-test, and then self-tested without further assistance. The research team re-read the self-test, repeated the self-test, drew blood for the laboratory reference, and conducted RDTs following the national HIV testing algorithm (Determine™ HIV1/2 (Alere) confirmed using Unigold™ HIV1/2 (Trinity Biotech)). Selected participants (N = 85) were videotaped whilst conducting the testing to observe common errors.

resultsInitial piloting showed that written instructions alone were inadequate, and a demonstration of self-test use was required. Of 2,566 self-test users, 2,557 (99.6%) were able to interpret their result. Of participants who were videoed 75/84 (89.3%) completed all steps of the procedure correctly. Agreement between the user-read result and the researcher-read result was 99.1%. Compared to the RDT algorithm, user-conducted HIVST was 94.1% sensitive (95%CI: 90.2-96.7) and 99.7% specific (95%CI: 99.3-99.9). Compared to the laboratory reference, both user-conducted HIVST (sensitivity 87.5%, 95%CI: 82.70-91.3; specificity 99.7%, 95%CI: 99.4-99.9) and the national RDT algorithm (sensitivity 93.4%, 95%CI: 89.7-96.1%; specificity 100% (95%CI: 99.8-100%) had considerably lower sensitivity.

conclusionsSelf-testers in Zambia who used OraQuick® HIV Self-Test achieved reasonable clinical performance compared to the national RDT algorithm. However, sensitivity of the self-test was reduced compared to a laboratory reference standard, as was the national RDT algorithm. In-person demonstration, along with the written manufacturer instructions, was needed to obtain accurate results. Programmes introducing self-care diagnostics should pilot and optimise support materials to ensure they are appropriately adapted to context.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsSelf-TestingAlgorithmsHIV TestingHumansMass ScreeningReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityZambiaDiagnostic testsHIVHIV self-testingIn vitro diagnosticsSelf-care

Identifiers

PMID35614397
PMCPMC9134574

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.