|
|
Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test?
#193627 - 05/30/06 02:48 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Most of the times. Check the board for a particular case where it was negative but ELISA positive (3 months).
Post Extras:
|
|
sunkyst
|
|
Master
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/22/06
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure. I think there has been some controversy over the Oraquick test recently. There is a person on these boards, Daisey I think, who tested negative with Oraquick and then positive with the regular Elisa test around the same time. I would personally put more trust in the regular elisa blood test.
Post Extras:
|
|
SteveR
|
|
Legend
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/19/05
|
|
Posts: 576
|
|
|
|
|
Outside the window period, it's supposed to be just as accurate. But within the window period, the serum test may be slightly better at detecting recent infection.
Daisey's very unusual case occurred at the tail end of the window period, right around three months. She later tested positive (though weakly) on the Oraquick.
I wouldn't hesitate to get a rapid test if I were outside the 13-week window period. But if you want a preliminary test earlier (say, at 6 weeks), I'd get the serum test. (You'd still need a confirming test at 13 weeks or more.)
Post Extras:
|
|
JonCage
|
|
Master
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/13/06
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
Rapid tests are as reliable as as standard blood draw ELISA's. They are tuned so sensitive that they are likely to provide false positive as noted in the media. There have been no reports of false negatives however.
The only downfall of the oraquick test is that they cannot be used as diagnosis. Any positive results must be confirmed by a standard ELISA and WB to confirm infection or a false positive.
--------------------
Red like love, as a symbol of passion and tolerance towards those affected
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Forget all the talk on this board about one person and the Oraquick rapid test. No one knows the whole story about that.
As JonCage said, “Rapid tests are as reliable as as standard blood draw ELISA's. They are tuned so sensitive that they are likely to provide false positive as noted in the media. There have been no reports of false negatives however. “
That said at 6/8 weeks they would pick up any anti-bodies produced with infection. Here is a post answered by H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Senior Health Research Leader at the Battelle Center for Public Health Research and Evaluation, and Clinical Professor of Medicine at the Center of AIDS and STD, University of Washington. The OraQuick HIV test is excellent, just as accurate as other tests except for a slightly more common problem of false-positive results. But your negative result is completely reliable, and 7 weeks after exposure is enough time for the test to become positive. The official advice often is to wait 3 months to be 100% sure, but it really isn't necessary to be tested beyond 6 weeks.
That’s it, end of story. D.J.
Post Extras:
|
|
sunkyst
|
|
Master
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/22/06
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
I want to clarify this answer. Oraquick is a very good test, it's very sensitive so it does tend to give false positives at a slightly higher rate than the regular Elisa blood test but because all positive results are confirmed with an Elisa blood test and a western blot, this test is very accurate. Sorry if I misled you, that was not my intention.
Post Extras:
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
