ArticleIDCases2023
A case of a false positive HIV antigen/antibody screen in a pregnant woman at delivery and the clinical importance of reviewing signal-to-cutoff ratio values.
Article in IDCases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a unique case not previously touched upon in the literature, and its ensuing management, of a falsely reactive HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) screening test which resulted in a woman during active labor, hours after rupture of membranes. The patient was screened for HIV using the ARCHITECT 4th generation HIV 1 and 2 Antigen/Antibody (Ag/Ab) Combo assay, and the results were repeatedly reactive. A cesarean delivery was recommended, and the patient received intrapartum antiretroviral therapy. Due to rapid progression of labor, the infant was delivered vaginally and received multiple doses of antiretroviral therapy. For confirmation, a viral load PCR test was obtained which resulted undetectable, and it was concluded that the screening results were falsely positive. While the cause of the inaccurate screening result is still unclear, a COVID-19 vaccination in close proximity to the delivery remains suspicious. Four months after delivery, the patient's screening test was no longer reactive.
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.