You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 262 No. 24, December 22, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Original Contributions
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Reporting the Results of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing

Abram S. Benenson, MD; K. Michael Peddecord, DrPH; Louise K. Hofherr, PhD; Michael S. Ascher, MD; Roger N. Taylor, PhD; Thomas L. Hearn, MS

JAMA. 1989;262(24):3435-3438.


Abstract

We conducted a pilot study of potential sources of incorrect laboratory reports of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 testing using blind proficiency testing. Sets of three serum samples, including one serum sample with negative reactions in antibody tests, one serum sample with positive reactions, and one that gave false-positive results with certain testing kits, were sent as routine patient specimens to testing laboratories. Half the laboratories reported the serum sample positive for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies as "indeterminate"; one laboratory rendered a final positive report without supplemental testing. On the report forms, the actual laboratory results were often obscured and intermingled with information, sometimes incorrect, such as identifying the agent as "HTLV-III" (human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III) and advising that a test with positive results is evidence of exposure to the virus. Many of these reports have the potential to confuse, rather than to enlighten, the requesting physician.

(JAMA. 1989;262:3435-3438)



Author Affiliations

From the Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego (Calif) State University (Drs Benenson, Peddecord, and Hofherr); the Viral and Rickettsial Disease Laboratory, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley (Dr Ascher); and the Training and Laboratory Program Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Taylor and Mr Hearn).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-0405 (Dr Benenson).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Health Care Workers Infected With the Human Immunodeficiency Virus: The Next Steps
Lo and Steinbrook
JAMA 1992;267:1100-1105.
ABSTRACT  

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Indeterminate Western Blot Patterns: Prospective Studies in a Low Prevalence Population
Dock et al.
Arch Intern Med 1991;151:525-530.
ABSTRACT  

Update: Serologic Testing for HIV-1 Antibody--United States, 1988 and 1989
JAMA 1990;264:171-173.
 

Are Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Reports Clear to Clinicians?
Drotman and Valdiserri
JAMA 1989;262:3465-3466.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.