ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2023
Are Confirmatory Assays Reliable for HIV-1/HIV-2 Infection Differentiation? A Multicenter Study.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding indeterminate HIV serology through antigen-band pattern analysis of INNO-LIA and recomLine HIV confirmatory assays.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram model for predicting negative/indeterminate HIV-1 antibody confirmation: a strategy to streamline the diagnostic pathway.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Advancing HIV Diagnostics: Comparative Evaluation of Multisure HIV-1/2 Rapid Confirmatory Test Against Geenius and Traditional Reference Assays Within a CDC-Aligned Diagnostic Framework.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Current view on HIV-2 - epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment.Central European journal of public health · 2025Review
- Compact multiplex PCR device for HIV-1 and HIV-2 viral load determination from finger-prick whole blood in resource-limited settings.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the mindray CL900i CLIA HIV Ag/Ab combo assay for sensitive and specific HIV screening compared to established methods.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fourth-Generation HIV Rapid Tests: Enhanced Sensitivity and Reduced Diagnostic Window for HIV-1 Primary Infection Screening.Journal of medical virology · 2024Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of the new Bio-Rad HIV screening test, Access HIV combo V2.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- [Comparison of two methodologies for HIV confirmation in a Blood Bank].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunoblots remain the gold standard for HIV-1/HIV-2 infection confirmation. However, their ability to differentiate HIV-1 from HIV-2 infection on an antigenically diversified HIV-1 and HIV-2 panel remain uncommon. We performed a multicenter study on 116 serum samples accounting for most of the diversity of HIV-1 (9 different subtypes in group M, 17 circulating recombinant forms (CRFs), and 3 group O) and HIV-2 (groups A and B), evaluating seven confirmatory assays (six commercially available assays and one in-house assay) with genotyping as the reference. The assays were INNO-LIA HIV I/II score, HIV-2 blot 1.2, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I and II, Geenius, and an in-house serotyping enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Among the HIV-1 samples, INNO-LIA, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I, Geenius, and serotyping had comparable high sensitivities, from 98% to 100%, whereas HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II had high rates of "undetermined" results (85% and 95%, respectively). HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II misclassified 7% and 5% of HIV-1 samples as HIV-2, respectively, and HIV-2 blot 1.2 had an 8% false-negative rate. Among the HIV-2 samples, INNO-LIA, New Lav blot II, HIV-2 blot 1.2, and serotyping had high sensitivities, from 96% to 100%. HIV blot 2.2 misclassified 17% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infections. New Lav blot I misclassified 19% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1 with a high (81%) undetermined rate, and Geenius misclassified 2% as HIV-1 and 7% as untypeable HIV positive. For HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infection, the results were less sensitive, with at most 87.5% for INNO-LIA and Geenius and 75% for HIV blot 2.2 and serotyping. Overall, confirmatory assays remain useful for most cases, with the exception of HIV-1/HIV-2 dual-infection suspicion.
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.