Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol
   
Ask the Experts About

Understanding Your LabsUnderstanding Your Labs
          
Rollover images to visit our other forums!
Recent AnswersAsk a Question
  
  • Email Email
  • Glossary Glossary


HIV saliva hometest versus HIV ELISA test
Apr 30, 1999

Case Study

Twenty-two countries participated in the studies herin referenced. A total 0f 3,867 patients and/or subjects were tested and reported. Paired specimens of serum and saliva were tested. The serum specimens were tested whether or not they were known positive or negative. The subject's serum had to be tested with both ELISA and Western Blot. The saliva samples were tested by the adjusted rapid ELISA test which is contained in the HIVhometest test kits.

The following are the results of the tests reported:

Of the 3,867 patients and/or subjects which were tested and reported, 368 were positive with the HIVhometest. Of the 368 positives with the HIVhometest, 367 were positive with ELISA test on the serum and 365 were positive with confirmation tests using Western Blot. Comparing the HIVhometest with the Western Blot gave a sensativity (frequency of a positive test in individuals with the HIV disease) of 99.18%.

Of the 3,498 patients and/or subjects which were tested and reported negative with the HIVhometest, 3,493 were negative with ELISA and 3,498 were tested negative with confirmation tests using Western Blot. Comparing the HIVhometest with the Western Blot gave a specificity (frequency of negative test results in individuals without the HIV disease) of 100%.

It must be noted that there were not any tests performed at a later date to determine if any of the negative subjects were tested during a time when the disease did not produce sufficient antibodies to be detected. Although the chance of a window (inability to detect antibodies) may occur, the author has made his conclusion based upon the assumptions that none of the tests was conducted during this window period. To eliminate this possibility, it would be necessary to test for viral load using the Polymerase Chain reaction test (PCR) for RNA or DNA.

In summary: Sensativity: 99.18% Specificity: 100%

It can be concluded from this study that the HIV ELISA is overly sensative (false positive) and inaccurate (false negative); while the saliva HIVhometest is only overly sensative.(false positive)

This information proves that the ELISA is a bad screening test. Any comment regarding this information?

Response from Dr. Holodniy

Great summary. Wrong conclusions. Why don't you calculate the false positive and false negative rates for all the tests you cite and then explain why they are bad screening tests. MH



Previous
PCR test better than antibody test for diagnosis?
Next
PCR RNA

  
  • Email Email
  • Glossary Glossary

 Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS


 
Advertisement



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.

Powered by ExpertViewpoint

Advertisement