Trial reportJournal of viral hepatitis2025
Balancing Efficiency and Accuracy in Hepatitis C Rapid Antibody Testing: Insights From a Cluster Randomised Crossover Trial.
Trial report in Journal of viral hepatitis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05016609 (Same-visit Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment to Accelerate Cure Among People Who Inject Drugs), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Same-visit Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment to Accelerate Cure Among People Who Inject Drugs: a Cluster Randomised Control Trial (The QuickStart Study)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balancing Efficiency and Accuracy in Hepatitis C Rapid Antibody Testing: Insights From a Cluster Randomised Crossover Trial.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Trial
- Assessing the Utility of Shortened Read Time of the Abbott Bioline HCV Test to Predict Viremia.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hepatitis C remains a significant global health problem, particularly among people who inject drugs. To achieve Australia's 2030 elimination targets, efficient testing strategies are needed. The OraQuick rapid antibody test provides results in 20 min, but many non-viraemic individuals with resolved infections test positive, potentially leading to unnecessary confirmatory RNA testing. Reducing the read time to five minutes has been proposed to reduce false positives and improve efficiency, but its impact on viremia detection is unclear. This study utilised data from the QuickStart study, a randomised controlled trial investigating different rapid testing pathways and a same-day test-and-treat model. Participants underwent OraQuick rapid antibody testing with results read at both five and 20 min, followed by confirmatory RNA testing. Among 298 participants with OraQuick and RNA test results, the 20-min OraQuick test was positive for all 79 viraemic individuals and 156 non-viraemic individuals. At five minutes, positive results decreased to 77 (97.5%) of viraemic and 135 (87%) non-viraemic individuals with positive 20-min results. Using a five-minute result to trigger RNA testing would have reduced unnecessary RNA testing by 13% in our cohort at the cost of missing 2.5% of viraemic individuals. A five-minute read time could improve efficiency by reducing unnecessary RNA testing, but confirmatory RNA testing remains essential to distinguish active from resolved infections. The balance between efficiency and accuracy may vary contextually, reflecting differing rates of resolved infections. This approach may be beneficial in resource-limited settings, but the potential for missed viremia must be considered. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT05016609.
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.