. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Aug 1;69(4):430–438. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000610

Table 2.

Comparison of different testing approaches for evaluating samples with discordant HIV rapid test results.^*

	Samples evaluated N=173 HIV positive N=29 (Tanzania N=24, South Africa N=5) HIV negative N=144 (Tanzania N=103, South Africa N=41)

Testing approach	True Positive	False positive	True Negative	False negative	Sensitivity	Specificity	Accuracy
Rapid test^a
Tanzania	2	4	99	22	8.3%	96.1%	79.5%

3rd-gen EIA
Tanzania	3	1	102	21	12.5%	99.0%
South Africa	4	1	40	1	80%	97.6%
Total	7	2	142	22	24.1%	98.6%	86.1%

Bio-Rad 4^th-gen
Tanzania	23	16	87	1	95.8%	84.5%
South Africa	4	1	40	1	80%	97.6%
Total	27	17	127	2	93.1%	88.2%	89.0%

Abbott 4^th-gen
Tanzania	24	13	90	0	100%	87.4%
South Africa	4	1	40	1	80%	97.6%
Total	28	14	130	1	96.6%	90.3%	91.3%

Abbreviations: 3^rd-gen: third-generation; 4^th-gen: fourth-generation; EIA: enzyme immunoassay.

The assays used for testing (See Methods) included: Rapid test: Uni-Gold HIV Test; 3rd-gen EIA: VITROS Anti-HIV 1+2 assay; Bio-Rad 4^th-gen: GS HIV Combo Ag/Ab EIA; Abbott 4^th-gen: ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay.

The HIV rapid test (third test, tie-breaker) was performed in Tanzania only; all other testing was performed at the HPTN Laboratory Center in Baltimore, MD, USA.