2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2014.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: The aims of this study were to compare the automated AxSYM avidity assay index with the BED capture enzyme immunoassay test and to calculate the HIV-1 incidence using the BED capture enzyme immunoassay and AxSYM avidity assay index algorithms within a population seeking the Voluntary Counselling and Testing Centres in two municipalities in the Metropolitan Region of Recife, Northeast of Brazil. An analysis was conducted in 365 samples that tested positive for HIV infection from frozen serum collected during th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One study used an FRR of 0 for the main analysis, and compared incidence results with those generated assuming an FRR of 0.39% in a sensitivity analysis [ 124 ]. Two studies used a published MDRI and a published FRR (ie, from another study’s published findings of the assay’s FRR) that was different from 0 [ 116 , 148 ]. The remaining 13 studies estimated incidence using alternate estimators not incorporating MDRI or FRR, both with adjustments of assay performance made for the local context [ 128 , 135 , 139 , 142 , 149 ] and no local assay-based adjustments [ 101 , 115 , 122 , 127 , 141 , 144 , 146 , 150 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…One study used an FRR of 0 for the main analysis, and compared incidence results with those generated assuming an FRR of 0.39% in a sensitivity analysis [ 124 ]. Two studies used a published MDRI and a published FRR (ie, from another study’s published findings of the assay’s FRR) that was different from 0 [ 116 , 148 ]. The remaining 13 studies estimated incidence using alternate estimators not incorporating MDRI or FRR, both with adjustments of assay performance made for the local context [ 128 , 135 , 139 , 142 , 149 ] and no local assay-based adjustments [ 101 , 115 , 122 , 127 , 141 , 144 , 146 , 150 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recency proportions were typically presented as [number recent]/[number tested with recency assays] × 100%, with no articles reporting original results that discussed a strategic choice of denominator to improve validity. While 10 articles compared methods for addressing misclassification or referred to the challenges of assay misclassification as a remaining limitation in their analysis, most did not include this consideration in their report [ 127 , 148 , 151 , 153 , 155 , 161 , 163 , 166 , 168 , 169 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations