ArticleRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2024
[Comparison of two methodologies for HIV confirmation in a Blood Bank].
Article in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are different confirmatory methods approved by standard 253 to detect HIV-1 or HIV-2 infection, such as: Western blot, Immunofluorescence, Recombinant immunoassay, among others. Objective: Compare the concordance of recombinant immunoassay (GeniusTM) versus Western blot (WB) tests for confirmatory analysis of HIV-reactive samples in donors at the Blood Bank. Material and methods: Samples that repeatedly showed reactivity for HIV during chemiluminescence screening were analyzed. Confirmatory tests were applied by Western Blot and Recombinant Immunoassay (GeniusTM). A double-blind study was carried out using 39 reactive and 41 non-reactive samples by HIV serology. The results were submitted to Diagnostic agreement. Results: When analyzed with WB, the 39 samples with a reactive result gave a positive result and of the 41 samples with a non-reactive result, 35 were found to have negative results and 6 were indeterminate. When analyzed with GeniusTM, the 39 samples with reactive results gave positive results and the 41 non-reactive samples gave negative results. The Kappa index obtained was 0.85. Conclusions: It was found that there is a high agreement between the two methods and that both are reliable as tests for confirmatory analysis of HIV in the Blood Bank, however, for practicality the GeniusTM method offers more advantages.
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.