ArticleBMC research notes2025
A comparative analysis of the different HIV testing techniques used in Zambia: data from a clinical performance study.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 40 million people globally are living with HIV (PLWH) and more than 50% of these PLWH reside in Eastern and Southern Africa. Zambia has an adult HIV-1 prevalence (ages 15-49) of 11.1 [10.5-11.6] %, among the highest in the world (UNAIDS, 2021). In 2020, 1.5 million people were estimated living with HIV-1 in Zambia. Despite the success of many HIV preventative strategies, and worldwide sensitization to know one's status, there remains a substantial number of people with HIV who are unaware of their infection and are still infecting others. Globally, about 20% of HIV infections are due to transmissions from recently infected individuals. As Zambia's adult HIV prevalence is about 11.1%, if 3rd generation RDTs are used for first time HIV testing, all the people tested that are within the acute period will be given a false negative result. Hence the need to develop better first line HIV testing techniques.
methodA quantitative descriptive approach was used to analyze samples of 2564 participants, between the ages of 15 to 95 years from two Lusaka sites. The 2564 participants were subjected to OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test and Abbot Determine™ HIV-1/2 antibody test, if Reactive on either test, the result was confirmed on Uni-Gold™ Recombigen
resultsThe Abbot ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo fourth generation assay was used as the gold standard, of the total 2564 tested 267 (10.4%) were reactive tests and 2297(89.6%) non-reactive. OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 test detected 245(9.6%) reactive tests and 2319 (90.4%) non-reactive, Abbot Determine™ HIV-1/2 test detected 249(9.7%) true reactive tests and 2315 (90.3%) non-reactive, all reactive tests on the first two RDTs were confirmed on Uni-Gold™ Recombigen
conclusionThird generation RDTs were unable to detect a good number of acute positive cases and are therefore unreliable. There is therefore need for the use 4th generation Rapid test to capture the positive cases currently being missed out.
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.