ArticlePloS one2026
The Asanté™ HIV-1 Rapid Recency® Assay is reliable, feasible, and acceptable for use at the point-of-care in Lusaka, Zambia.
Article in PloS one, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundZambia established a recent infection testing algorithm (RITA) incorporating a novel point-of-care (POC) rapid test-the Asanté™ HIV-1 Rapid Recency® Assay (RTRI)-plus a HIV-1 viral load (VL) test to distinguish recent (≤12 months) from long-term (>12 months) HIV acquisition. This study evaluated the field performance of RTRI when implemented by healthcare workers at the POC.
methodsWe enrolled individuals newly diagnosed with HIV between 20 May 2021 and 10 March 2022 at two Ministry of Health facilities in Lusaka, Zambia. Participants received on-site RTRI testing and provided an additional sample for repeat RTRI and VL testing at a central laboratory. Final recent infection testing algorithm (RITA) results were returned to the study sites and were made available to clients at their study follow-up visit. Agreement between POC- and laboratory-RTRI was assessed using Cohen's Kappa. We compared recent versus long-term HIV classification across testing locations using the national RITA as the reference standard. Four focus group discussions (FGDs) with health staff explored perceptions surrounding POC-RTRI implementation.
resultsAgreement between POC and laboratory RTRI was 96.5%, with a Kappa of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.704-0.920). The POC-RTRI results indicated numerically more recent infections than laboratory-RTRI (30 vs 27), with three POC-RTRI false positives resulting in reduced sensitivity 85.0% for the POC-RTRI compared to 100.0% sensitivity for the laboratory-RTRI against the RITA reference standard. FGD participants (n = 28) agreed that POC RTRI was feasible and acceptable with adequate training, human resources, client counselling, and quality assurance measures.
conclusionThere was strong concordance between POC- and laboratory-RTRI results. The findings support the feasibility of implementing RTRI at POC by non-laboratory health workers, provided adequate training and health system resources are in place.
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.