 | ||
   | ||
Email
Glossary |
|
undetectable vs. detected but too low to count Aug 5, 2012 The last year and a half, my viral load was reported as detected but too low to count (<20). My most recent report says they are unable to detect the virus at all. Has there been a change in how the outcome is worded? Clearly, undetected must be better? |
||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
| Response from Dr. Holodniy
 Yes, and it is confusing to all of us. Undetected is indeed better than detected but too low to count. What it means clinically is still the subject of a lot of research and some controversy as to what one does with detectable levels of viral load. | ||||||||
 Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Q&A TERMS OF USE
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.
Review our complete terms of use and copyright notice.
