Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35994520›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2022

The performance of using dried blood spot specimens for HIV-1 viral load testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lara Vojnov, Sergio Carmona, Clement Zeh, Jessica Markby, Debrah Boeras, Marta R Prescott, Anthony L H Mayne, Souleymane Sawadogo, Christiane Adje-Toure, Guoqing Zhang and 8 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The time is now to use the tools we have to end AIDS in children.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

18 authors.

Lara VojnovClinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0488-1012
Sergio CarmonaNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6792-4748
Clement ZehCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5023-0336
Jessica MarkbyWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Debrah BoerasCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Marta R PrescottClinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6343-731X
Anthony L H MayneUniversity of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4173-6340
Souleymane SawadogoCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Windhoek, Namibia.ORCID 0000-0002-4206-4454
Christiane Adje-ToureCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire.
Guoqing ZhangCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Mercedes Perez GonzalezWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3554-8124
Wendy S StevensNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Meg DohertyWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2986-7129
Chunfu YangCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3331-0991
Heather AlexanderCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Trevor F PeterClinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
John NkengasongCenter for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/TB, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6047-0184
DBS for VL Diagnostics Investigation Consortium

Funding

PEPFARWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate routine HIV viral load testing is essential for assessing the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens and the emergence of drug resistance. While the use of plasma specimens is the standard for viral load testing, its use is restricted by the limited ambient temperature stability of viral load biomarkers in whole blood and plasma during storage and transportation and the limited cold chain available between many health care facilities in resource-limited settings. Alternative specimen types and technologies, such as dried blood spots, may address these issues and increase access to viral load testing; however, their technical performance is unclear. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing viral load results from paired dried blood spot and plasma specimens analyzed with commonly used viral load testing technologies. METHODS AND

findingsStandard databases, conferences, and gray literature were searched in 2013 and 2018. Nearly all studies identified (60) were conducted between 2007 and 2018. Data from 40 of the 60 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which accounted for a total of 10,871 paired dried blood spot:plasma data points. We used random effects models to determine the bias, accuracy, precision, and misclassification for each viral load technology and to account for between-study variation. Dried blood spot specimens produced consistently higher mean viral loads across all technologies when compared to plasma specimens. However, when used to identify treatment failure, each technology compared best to plasma at a threshold of 1,000 copies/ml, the present World Health Organization recommended treatment failure threshold. Some heterogeneity existed between technologies; however, 5 technologies had a sensitivity greater than 95%. Furthermore, 5 technologies had a specificity greater than 85% yet 2 technologies had a specificity less than 60% using a treatment failure threshold of 1,000 copies/ml. The study's main limitation was the direct applicability of findings as nearly all studies to date used dried blood spot samples prepared in laboratories using precision pipetting that resulted in consistent input volumes.

conclusionsThis analysis provides evidence to support the implementation and scale-up of dried blood spot specimens for viral load testing using the same 1,000 copies/ml treatment failure threshold as used with plasma specimens. This may support improved access to viral load testing in resource-limited settings lacking the required infrastructure and cold chain storage for testing with plasma specimens.

Indexed as

HIV-1HIV InfectionsDried Blood Spot TestingHumansRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityViral LoadRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID35994520
PMCPMC9447868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.