<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katsoulidou, A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petrodaskalaki, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sypsa, V</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Papachristou, E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anastassopoulou, C. G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gargalianos, P</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Karafoulidou, A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lazanas, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kordossis, T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andoniadou, A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hatzakis, A</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evaluation of the clinical sensitivity for the quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in plasma: Comparison of the new COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 with three current HIV-RNA assays--LCx HIV RNA quantitative, VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) and COBA</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Virol MethodsJ Virol MethodsJ Virol Methods</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of virological methods</style></alt-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of virological methodsJournal of virological methods</style></short-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">*Viral Load</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HIV Infections/*virology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HIV-1/isolation &amp; purification/*physiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">RNA, Viral/*blood</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sensitivity and Specificity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Statistics as Topic</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Feb</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">131</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">168-74</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0166-0934 (Print)0166-0934 (Linking)</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test (Roche Diagnostics) was compared with the LCx HIV RNA quantitative assay (Abbott Laboratories), the Versant HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) assay (Bayer) and the COBAS Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor v1.5 test (Roche Diagnostics), using plasma samples of various viral load levels from HIV-1-infected individuals. In the comparison of TaqMan with LCx, TaqMan identified as positive 77.5% of the 240 samples versus 72.1% identified by LCx assay, while their overall agreement was 94.6% and the quantitative results of samples that were positive by both methods were strongly correlated (r=0.91). Similarly, in the comparison of TaqMan with bDNA 3.0, both methods identified 76.3% of the 177 samples as positive, while their overall agreement was 95.5% and the quantitative results of samples that were positive by both methods were strongly correlated (r=0.95). Finally, in the comparison of TaqMan with Monitor v1.5, TaqMan identified 79.5% of the 156 samples as positive versus 80.1% identified by Monitor v1.5, while their overall agreement was 95.5% and the quantitative results of samples that were positive by both methods were strongly correlated (r=0.96). In conclusion, the new COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test showed excellent agreement with other widely used commercially available tests for the quantitation of HIV-1 viral load.</style></abstract><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16194575</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katsoulidou, AntigoniPetrodaskalaki, MariaSypsa, VanaPapachristou, EleniAnastassopoulou, Cleo GGargalianos, PanagiotisKarafoulidou, AnastasiaLazanas, MariosKordossis, TheodorosAndoniadou, AnastasiaHatzakis, AngelosengComparative StudyEvaluation StudyNetherlands2005/10/01 09:00J Virol Methods. 2006 Feb;131(2):168-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.07.014. Epub 2005 Sep 27.</style></notes><auth-address><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, National Retrovirus Reference Center, Athens University Medical School, and General Hospital of Athens G. Gennimatas, Greece.</style></auth-address></record></records></xml>