ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Continuous quality evaluation of the Asanté rapid test for recent infection for robust kit lot quality verification.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Sedia Biosciences Asanté rapid test for recent infection (RTRI) can identify HIV infections and characterize HIV-1 as recent or long-term infection via the positive verification (V) line and long-term line (LT) line, respectively. Tracking with Recency Assays to Control the Epidemic (TRACE) program uses RTRI assays. Successful implementation of TRACE requires high-quality test performance. The goal of this study is to evaluate the additional quality practices established for new kit lots prior to field use. Asanté lot quality control data from the manufacturer is reviewed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention International Laboratory Branch (CDC-ILB) in the Division of Global HIV and TB using. If a lot passes manufacturer quality control and CDC-ILB review, test kits are sent to CDC-ILB for further evaluation. Evaluation by CDC includes inter-rater reliability and linear regressions comparing the V and LT lines against reference data as well as V and LT line data between testers. A Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess bias and systematic error. Overall, CDC-ILB passed 29 (91%) out of 32 Sedia Biosciences Asanté kit lots that initially passed manufacturing quality control from July 2017 to May 2020. Regression analyses demonstrate that test kits are performing as expected with consistent R2≥0.92 for both V and LT lines. On average, inter-rater reliability kappa was 0.9, indicating a strong level of agreement. Bland-Altman analyses demonstrate high agreement with little to no systematic error and bias. Ongoing evaluation of new RTRI kit lots is important to ensure high quality test performance. Rejecting 9% of kit lots highlight the importance of continuing to work with manufacturers to ensure consistent kit production and quality assurance (QA) activities. Investing in effective QA measures, conducting both pre- and post-market performance data reviews, could help improve RTRI accuracy and outcomes in similar testing programs.
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.