ArticleJournal of tropical medicine2025
Challenges in HIV Diagnosis Algorithm: Experience of the Confirmation Laboratory.
Article in Journal of tropical medicine, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm used in HIV diagnosis and to propose an effective new algorithm for rapid diagnosis. In accordance with CDC algorithm, our laboratory uses Architect HIVAg/Ab for screening and Geenius HIV1/2 and Artus HIVirus-1 QS-RGQ for confirmation. The Geenius test was used as a reflex and the HIV-1-RNA required clinician order. The HIVAg/Ab test was performed in 82,882 sera and found to be reactive in 262 (0.3%). HIV-antibody confirmatory testing was performed on 79% of samples with a reactive screening test, and the presence of HIV-1 antibodies was confirmed in 51% (105/206). Half of the samples with positive-screening but negative-antibody confirmatory results were tested for HIV1-RNA, and viremia was detected in 5, confirming acute HIV1 infection. HIV1-RNA was not ordered for 49 samples with positive-screening and negative antibody-confirmation tests, and 16 of these were considered false-reactive by the clinician. The Geenius assay result was indeterminate in 1.45% (3/206) of the samples. In the algorithm, the number of Geenius tests would have been reduced by 25% if HIV-1-RNA had been applied as a reflex test to HIV-Ag/Ab positive samples and Geenius testing had been performed on RNA negative samples. A retrospective analysis showed that the HIV diagnostic algorithm was not fully implemented. An important factor was that clinicians did not order HIV-1-RNA-PCR from ELISA reactive and Geenius test negative patients. Requesting HIV-1 RNA PCR as a reflex test is thought to prevent patient losses and shorten the turnaround time of the HIV diagnosis.
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.