<?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%">Papachristou, E.</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%">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%">Comparison of three current viral load assays for the quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in plasma</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-1/*isolation &amp; purification</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Regression Analysis</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></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oct</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">121</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">93-9</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 LCx HIV RNA quantitative assay (Abbott Laboratories, Delkenheim, Germany) was compared with the Versant HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) assay (Bayer, Tarrytown, NY) and the COBAS Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor v1.5 test (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ), using plasma samples of various viral load levels from HIV-1-infected patients. Considering the lower limit of the linear range of 50 copies/ml of both assays, the detection range of the LCx was 127/151 (84.1%) versus the 131/151 (86.8%) of the bDNA 3.0 assay, while overall agreement between the two assays was 93.4% (141/151). LCx and bDNA 3.0 results were found to be strongly correlated (r = 0.96). The fitted regression line was described by the equation log10(LCx copies/ml) = 0.05 + 1.06 x log10(bDNA 3.0 copies/ml) with 95% CI for the estimated slope and intercept at 1.01, 1.12 and -0.16, 0.26, respectively. Similarly, the detection range of the LCx was 115/148 (77.7%) versus the 128/148 (86.5%) of the Monitor v1.5 test. A 91.2% concordance (135/148) was observed between these two assays at a cut-off of 50 copies/ml. LCx and Monitor v1.5 results were highly correlated (r = 0.96). The fitted regression line was described by the equation log10(LCx copies/ml) = 0.06 + 1.03 x log(10)(Monitor v1.5 copies/ml) with 95% CI for the estimated slope and intercept at 0.97, 1.09 and -0.16, 0.28, respectively.</style></abstract><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15350738</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katsoulidou, AntigoniPapachristou, EleniPetrodaskalaki, MariaSypsa, VanaAnastassopoulou, Cleo GGargalianos, PanagiotisKarafoulidou, AnastasiaLazanas, MariosKordossis, TheodorosAndoniadou, AnastasiaHatzakis, AngelosengComparative StudyNetherlands2004/09/08 05:00J Virol Methods. 2004 Oct;121(1):93-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.06.007.</style></notes><auth-address><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Athens University Medical School, 75 Mikras Asias Street, GR-115 27 Athens, Goudi, Greece. ahatzak@med.uoa.gr</style></auth-address></record></records></xml>