ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2026
Developing and evaluating a novel rapid test for recent HIV-1 infection: comparison with commercial LAg-EIA assays.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of recent HIV-1 infections is critical for real-time epidemic monitoring. However, conventional Limiting Antigen Avidity Enzyme Immunoassays (LAg-EIAs) are restricted to laboratory settings. A novel rapid recency test based on the limiting antigen avidity principle was developed for point-of-care use. We evaluated the performance of the rapid HIV-1 recency test using 500 longitudinal plasma specimens from 107 seroconverters. The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) was estimated via binomial regression with maximum likelihood modeling. The false recent rate (FRR) was assessed using samples from individuals with long-term infection, including those on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Concordance was compared with two commercial LAg-EIA kits (Maxim and KingHawk). The rapid assay yielded an MDRI of 123 days (95% CI: 87-138), shorter than Maxim (152 days, 95% CI: 137-172) and KingHawk (131 days, 95% CI: 107-140). Among ART-naïve individuals infected for over 1 year, FRR was 5.3%, similar to Maxim (5.9%) and slightly higher than KingHawk (2.7%). High concordance was observed with Maxim (93.1%, kappa = 0.743) and KingHawk (89.4%, kappa = 0.558). In ART-treated individuals, FRR was significantly higher in the early ART group (69.9%) compared to the late ART group (20.2%,
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.