 |
 |

HIV Screening and False-Positive ResultsReply
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In Reply: Dr Guinn and Mr Zdeb raise important points to consider. The CDC formerly recommended against informing patients of an HIV-positive test result until it was confirmed. However, in 1998, the CDC recommended giving preliminary results from rapid tests because many HIV-infected persons did not return for the results of conventional tests.1
HIV test technology is extremely reliable. A study of blood donors found that after confirmatory testing with Western blot, the false-positive rate was 0.0004%, and this can be lowered by the use of subsequent RNA testing.2 The observed rapid test specificity (99.98%)3 is higher than that cited by either Guinn or Zdeb. A screening test's predictive value is also a function of disease prevalence, but Zdeb may also understate HIV prevalence in the United States.4 Thus, there will be fewer false-positive results and a higher positive predictive value with HIV screening than the writers suggest, although some . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, LLD
gostin@law.georgetown.edu ONeill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Debra Guinn
JAMA. 2007;297(9):947.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Michael S. Zdeb
JAMA. 2007;297(9):947-948.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
HIV Screening in Health Care Settings: Public Health and Civil Liberties in Conflict?
Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. 2006;296(16):2023-2025.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|