Talk:Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS

message: The 9th reference of the article points to a paper of the "The XV International AIDS Conference" that is no longer available. I was able to find a reference to it and further explanations on http://www.thebody.com/confs/aids2004/wohl3.html
I believe it would be important for someone with more insight on the matter to point out in the main article that these negative results do not apply to post exposure prophylaxis.
The reason for this suggestion is that the referenced paper may incline or lead one to believe that after a PEP treatment the hiv test wouldn't be as reliable.
Subjects who discontinued ART in this study did indeed experience viral rebound. Equally important is the need to recognize that all these patients had detectable HIV in their plasma by PCR prior to ART initiation -- these were not cases of post-exposure prophylaxis.
213.22.7.143 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the link but made no other changes. Trezatium 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Most false negative results are due to the window period; other factors, such as post-exposure prophylaxis, can rarely produce false negatives."
According to the cited source (C. B. Hare et al.) this is NOT the case as long as the window period (which might or might not be extended by PEP) is taken into consideration. The production of antibodies was only impaired (e.g. false negative ELISA) when viral replication was continuously suppressed using ART for more than 24 weeks. In cases of PEP failure, viral loads would spike after the withdrawal of antiretrovirals leading to the formation of antibodies (e.g. positive ELISA). 
As the sentence is misleading and might make PEP users believe that testing after PEP is not conclusive, it should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.119.211 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative HIV Antibody Test Results Among People Treated During Acute/Early Infection 

message: HIV test follows the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) for an article about the many different tests used to detect HIV. This article is organised around the three main types of test; antibody, antigen and RNA and attempts to present the approved uses and limitations of each type of test in accordance with the neutral point of view policy.
The following links currently redirect to HIV test: AIDS test, AIDS testing, HIV testing, OraQuick  and P24 antigen test
Sci guy 14:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: As HIV testing has been merged with HIV test, can this talk page now be refactored?
Sci guy 03:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging talk page 

message: Wikipedia doesn't need separate articles on HIV test and HIV testing. One article will suffice for both noun and gerund. - Nunh-huh 14:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what problems do you refer to? In any case, this all should be discussed in a single article rather than fragmenting it all over the place. - Nunh-huh 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: the following template is present in the source:
Conference reference | Author=C B Hare, B L Pappalardo, M P Busch, B Phelps, S S Alexander, C Ramstead, J A Levy, F M Hecht | Title=Negative HIV antibody test results among individuals treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) during acute/early infection | Booktitle= The XV International AIDS Conference | Year=2004 | Pages=Abstract no. MoPeB3107
it gives the following output:

anybody up to fix that? (clem 17:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It now uses "cite conference". Guy Harris 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid template? 

message: I think the following sentence from the "Interpreting Test Results" section is clearly biased and violates NPOV:
Such a faulty methodology has had extremely serious consequences, i.e. the world-wide use of HIV-antibody tests, Elisa and Western Blot, which dangerously lack specificity, as demonstrated in 1993 by Papadopulos et al. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., Turner, V. F. & Papadimitriou, J. M. (1993)
This methodology is only described as "faulty" by a miniscule number of people (i.e. AIDS dissidents/denialists). See http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm for a discussion on how the Perth Group's (i.e. Papadopulos) conditions for virus isolation are deemed unnecessary by almost all virologists.
:How about you await a response here before slapping a  tag on the article? JFW | T@lk 02:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't know...saying tests with specificity of >98% "dangerously" lack specificity is a bad enough misrepresentation of the facts as to merit an NPOV or a fix. I've done the latter, with a good recent (2005) reference replacing the denialist one from 1993. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpreting Test Results Section in Dispute 

message: These edits didn't include any comments and only removed text. I agree that the article was (is) a bit wordy, but perhaps a shorter version of the removed text would be better than its wholesale removal. Please comment here regarding those edits. (Otherwise, I'll just revert them.) The Rod (☎ Smith) 18:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were actually reasonable edits, but you made them without edit summaries, which (along with the fact you are using an IP address rather than a nickname) leads to suspicion. It would be good if you set up a name to edit under (not necessary, but it's in fact more anonymous than an IP, and helps to develop a metric of trust), and it's important to use edit summaries when removing information (e.g. "removing misleading argumentation about sensitivity") etc. Remember, people who know nothing about a subject may be checking such edits (to be sure they aren't vandalism) so it's good to explain it to them simply. In cases where it's necessary to remove a lot of material, it may even be a good idea to make a brief explanation (which can cover sever edits) on the talk page (i.e., here.) - Nunh-huh 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, anon and Nunh-huh. (And agreed, I don't see anything compelling removed.) Thanks for the cleanup, anon. Looking forward to welcoming you formally if you register! Also, be prepared for denialist reverts. If that occurs, a short summary of denialist view near the end may become valuable, if for no other reason than to keep such POV contained. The Rod (☎ Smith) 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I signed up for an account...my user name is Robbieisfun.  I made some small changes to the Interpreting Antibody Results section.   The more I read this article, the more I come across denialist pseudoscience.  This article may require an somewhat extensive rewrite, rather than just deleting things as I have done.  --Robbieisfun 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article was originally written by a denialist trying to make a point. We tried to get the most misleading points out, but I think you've demonstrated there's more to do.  - Nunh-huh 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous blanking 

message: While the HIV article and sister articles are very informative, there are a few places where the terms HIV and AIDS are used interchangeably, which is misleading and ultimately incorrect.  It is the virus that causes AIDS.   Because of advances in HIV treatment, I believe even the term AIDS virus is misleading because it makes an automatic connection between HIV and AIDS, whereas theorhetically, due to the advances in medicine, a person can live with the HIV virus and not develop into AIDS (which, as you know, is a syndrome that requires many factors to be met, as determined by the CDC).
Thanks. Bsheppard 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language improperly says AIDS and HIV are synonymous

message: "Almost all HIV-infected persons with indeterminate Western-Blot results will develop a positive result when tested in one month; persistently indeterminate results over a period of six months suggests the results are not due to HIV infection."
:Who wrote this?? It's completely circular. Everyone knows WESTERN BLOT IS ONLY VALIDATED AGAINST ITSELF AND ELISA, SO SAYING PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY TEST INDETERMINATE AREN'T INFECTED IS COMPLETELY CIRCULAR. 198.59.188.232 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, if "persistent indeterminate results suggests [sic] the results are not due to HIV infection", why are they called indeterminate?? THAT'S WHAT INDETERMINATE MEANS!! "Indeterminate" means "we can't tell if it's due to HIV infection or not". You're basically saying "repeated indeterminate" = "negative", which is nonsense. There's no way you can take several indeterminate results, each of which individually are indeterminate, and claim altogether they mean it's negative. That's asinine. 198.59.188.232 10:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure circular reasoning 

message: Hey, Trezatium. YOU GOT THE WRONG PAPER. The actual paper is
* Conley, L.J. and Holmerg, S.D. 1992. Transmission of AIDS from blood screened negative for antibody to the human immunodeficiency virus. NEJM 326:1499.
YOU QUOTED
* JW Ward, SD Holmberg, JR Allen, DL Cohn, SE Critchley, SH Kleinman, BA Lenes, O Ravenholt, JR Davis, MG Quinn, and et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by blood transfusions screened as negative for HIV antibody. Volume 318:473-478 February 25, 1988  Number 8
Nice try. Either
(a) You're too stupid to find the article Perth ACTUALLY referenced,
or
(b) You're too naive to think I'd actually take the time to check to see if you wouldn't try to pull a fast one by me.
Take your pick. I don't care which is the case. Either way, it's YOU with egg on your face. Darin 198.59.190.201 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The turmoils of Trezatium 

message: I guess I'm just stupid. The articles have similar titles, appeared in the same journal and share an author, so I must have clicked on the wrong result in Google or Pubmed. I should have been more careful. I'm not interested in scoring points off you or anyone else, I'm just trying to ensure that the information in Wikipedia is accurate and unbiased, so I'm grateful to you for pointing out my mistake.
As you say, the Perth Group's reference was in fact a letter sent to NEJM. I agree that they would do better to cite a peer-reviewed article rather than a piece of correspondence. They could, for example, have referenced the article that I quoted. I wonder why they chose not to.
Anyway, the abstract for the letter in question can be found here. It appears to be discussing the same issue as the article I quoted, namely the risk of HIV transmission from blood taken from donors during the "window period", when viral load is very high but antibodies are not yet present. I haven't seen the full letter, but I very much doubt that it supports the assertion that, "Recipients of negative blood seroconvert and develop AIDS while the donors remain healthy and seronegative". Since you work at a university, perhaps you could look it up and report back?
I only cited this article as an example of how the Perth Group misrepresent other people's studies. And I think that my point still stands. If you follow up the references from this web page then you'll get an idea of how much data they are choosing to ignore.
To address your points in order:
# I listed the impact factors to answer your rebuttal of my "usually obscure" statement.
# I don't think that you've answered my challenge. Who but dissidents have explicitly called for the reappraisal of modern HIV antibody testing?
# To repeat, the p24 test detects antigen, while the WB test detects antibodies, including antibodies to the p24 antigen. Your mistake not mine.
# To repeat, the p24 test is not generally used to make a diagnosis (I never said never). Here is a reference.
# Indeterminate=indeterminate. Nobody is diagnosed positive until they get a positive result. Under current guidelines, they won't start treatment until they have also developed an illness or severe immunodeficiency.
# The CDC says, "Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV." The purpose of the NEJM article was to discuss seven such "very rare cases". That's why there were only seven of them, in a country where around 40,000 people become infected with HIV each year. Another NEJM article estimates that the risk of HIV transmission from screened blood was 1 in 450,000-660,000 in 1995, though it was previously higher when tests were less sensitive.
Trezatium 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that the authors said "within the four months", so in some cases the period may have been just a few weeks or even days. How about checking the full text? Trezatium 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Darin 

message: The article states that, "The p24 antigen test is not useful for general diagnostics." I think this is slightly misleading, since the p24 test can be useful for testing people with very recent exposure (after a window period of a few days, and within about three weeks of exposure), and for testing newborn babies. The article also says that the p24 test "is no longer used routinely in the US or the EU to screen blood donations." Although the US reference cited recommends switching to nucleic acid testing, it doesn't say that p24 testing has ceased. The Eurpopean reference only discusses a collection of Western European countries, not the whole EU. It might be worth doing a bit more research on this topic. Trezatium 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The p24 test 

message: I've made mostly minor updates to the style, writing, and organization, as well as adding some citations and a few more significant changes. I'm not clear offhand on the status of p24 for diagnosis but can look into this. As far as User:198.59.190.201, quite a few anonymous IP's from Albequerque NM are used to make edits from an AIDS-denialist POV. These edits and talk page comments all share a common tone (generally abusive, lots of personal attacks, occasionally threatening to vandalize a page when s/he doesn't get his/her way, etc); either there are quite a few uncouth AIDS denialists in Albequerque, or these are all the work of the same, anonymous editor ("Darin"). The latter seems more likely. MastCell 02:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darin is Darin Brown, creator of the dissident "AIDS Wiki". Trezatium 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so. MastCell 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrites 

message: The sources for the accuracy of HIV tests are  more than a decade old. How reliable are the rates statad in this wiki (.003% and .0006%)? Is this information current? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiggyG (talk • contribs) .
:Actually, the most current evaluation is probably that quoted in the article from the United States Preventive Task Force review, published 2005 in Annals of Internal Medicine. The article is available online here. They found the chance of a false-positive in the general population as 1 in 250,000 (0.0004%). The USPTF in turn cited a 1998 study by Kleinman et al. (JAMA. 1998;280:1080-5 ) as their source for the false-positive number. So the numbers from this Wikipedia article are up to date and accurate. Since testing methodologies haven't changed much (ELISA plus WB), and the original studies were robust, they probably won't be updated too often, but the Kleinman (1998) study suggests that things haven't changed much in terms of accuracy from 1989-1998. MastCell 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be mentioned that the accuracy of the "HIV test" (since there is no gold standard for HIV) was obtained by repeating the test and looking for the same result? --Loundry 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the above USPTF article as well as the sources cited in the Wikipedia article (, , among others), you'll see that the ELISA/WB strategy was in fact verified by culture of HIV. Culture of the pathogen in question is a widely accepted gold standard in microbiology. So I think inserting your suggestion would be inappropriate. MastCell 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing For Test Accuracy 

message: I'm about to change the wording of the last sentence, but I'm wondering if it should be there at all. I mean limmiting an international thing down to one country is kind of strange, not to mention the fact that we should be using United States (with the link) since it's the first time we mentioned it. But what about Britan? What about India? What about _____? I would support putting that in a section of some kind, but not the first paragraph.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - the U.S/United States thing is fine ... I missed the second sentence. But now I think both those sentences should be taken out - an intro is supposed to give an overview - you don't go into specifics in an overview. Barring objections I'll delete them by tommorow.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not use the manufacturer's disclaimer directly? Alere Determine™ HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo. It explains: "The test is intended as an aid to detect HIV-1 p24 antigen and antibodies to HIV-1/HIV-2 from infected individuals.". It is not even a detection of antibodies, but an "aid" in the detection. This implies additional procedures just for the antibodies. No claims to the virus are made. --145.64.134.242 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: Saying something is accurate might be crossing the npov line, and frankly what bad does adding "considered" do. I mean according to the sources, they are considered to be very accurate. But it's a theory that they are accurate - not a fact. I mean take the entire population that says "HIV doesn't exist" - by saying they are accurate, we're saying HIV does exist, which is NPOV - I'm not sure what the issue is here - it's a no-brainer.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, I'm moving that section of the text as soon as this conversation gets through with - it has no place in the first ip as mentioned above.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HIV does exist. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might believe that - and frankly so do I, but some people don't. Therefore you saying it is NPOV - and if that's your only argument I'm reverting it back - we must follow Wikipedia's guidelines.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV doesn't mean unanimous consent. It means views are attributed and represented proportionally. By adding considered you are giving the HIV denialist view undue weight. That some people refuse to accept well-established fact is irrelevant. We reference their dissent, but that dissent need not color our description of facts. Thus our article on the Earth notes that some people believed in a flat earth, but that doesn't color its description of the actual facts. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For you to compare this to the flat earth theory is rediculous. I mean I'm trying to think of a metephor but frankly it's so unbelievably strange that I can't. It's such an exageration. As far as undue weight goes - the majority does not define wp's opinion. And it's not just people who don't think HIV exist - there are plenty of articles suggesting that HIV test may not pick up the disease in the early stages. In fact - if I can find enough articles for either side, I'm going to say the accuracy has been disputed and then have both links - unless of course again you come up with another argument. Also - I assume you agree with moving the last 2 sentences out of the first IP (as stated above)Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually rather a good analogy. To say "accuracy has been disputed" as though both sides of that "dispute" were equally well supported would be misleading and inappropriate. - Nunh-huh 07:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: HOLY CRAP -  I found the motherload of artilces - this first one says that the HIV test is accurate in testing for antibodies which may or may not be HIV. Given that it's called the "HIV Test" - then accuracy must depend on how many times HIV shows up - which obviuosly varies. this second (in a q+a format) in the first answer at one point says it could take a few weeks until the antibodies even show up.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Flat earthers are not geologists. In contrast, voices critical to the HIV/AIDS theory, including doubts on the proper demonstration and characterization of HIV, rise from within the scientific community. There are virologists (Stefan Lanka, Duesberg), biochemists (Nobel prize Kary Mullis^, Perth Group), MDs... You can't ignore a lack of consensus of academic nature.--145.64.134.242 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

text: OMG We even have a section on the "Widow period" - where the anti-bodies can't be detected. Ya this sentence is done.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should actually engage in a talk discussion before reverting me. The article does not say "US HIV Test - therefore the majority of the article is, in fact NOT about U.S. test - therefore by Wikipedia Manual of Style the U.S. test should not be mentioned in the first paragraph. Now there is a full section on accuracy of the U.S. test - and that section actually needs a few more countries which I can work on, but therefore it's not only not allowed by Manual of Style - it's just stupid to talk about it earlier, especially when your making vague statements such as "is extremely accurate" - which I have already told you is npov because Wikipedia is taking a side. I have provided you with links to support this and you refuse to listen to reason - I cannot believe that after me saying we should discuss this on the talk page, and then you leaving the discussion (when I guess you couldn't counter any of my points - are you vandalizing WP - because frankly purposely disregarding the Manual of Style by reverting edits could be considered vandalism) and then you revert what I did. I'm going back to, literlally, the correct way.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution to your concern is to add information about test in other places where they differ. It is not to remove information.  I've listened to what you call "reason" and unfortunately it's lacking in logic, and lacking in any real understanding of the subject matter the article discusses. The numbers are in the article, and they are better than most clinical tests. You would do well to take your own advice and discuss first before making changes, because the changes you are making are not improving the article. Note that your removal of references has now been reverted by two people, not one, so attacking me as a vandal is probably not the way to communicate your concerns. - Nunh-huh 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) OK, a few things. Regarding Wikipedia "taking a side", you (Daniel) really need to read the WP:NPOV policy, specifically the section on "Undue weight", and perhaps the NPOV FAQ. Views of a scientifically discredited, tiny minority (e.g. that HIV doesn't cause AIDS) should not be accorded equal weight with views that have a scientific consensus behind them. To quote, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject." Wikipedia does "take sides", in a sense - it presents the majority view as the majority view, and the views of tiny minorities are either mentioned briefly or not at all. Every major medical organization in the world agrees that HIV causes AIDS. Sure, a few cranks think that flatworms cause all human cancers, and they publish on their websites, but we don't include those views in the cancer article. If that's unclear after reading WP:NPOV, it might be worth posting at the Village Pump. Secondly, yes, Nunh-huh should have come here instead of reverting you the second time. On the other hand, per WP:VANDAL, content disputes are not vandalism - another common misconception. Finally, I think it's fine the remove the U.S.-centric stuff from the intro, and the article could definitely use more non-U.S. information - I agree with you that the WP:MOS would support that. However, when you delete a large chunk of sourced content, along with the references, you need to check the rest of the article. Several later references point to the section you deleted, and when you removed it those references broke. Please be careful when deleting sourced content - it's worth checking, after your edit, to make sure that no other references depended on the text you deleted. MastCell 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure how your arguments related to my final argument ... and same goes to your vandal thing ... rather than going into how the latter failed (which really I could talk about in a paper-style article - I mean wow, talk about a swing and a miss there), I'll just focus on the former. There is already a section on the accuracy - why have you not resopnded to that? I will admit it was stupid of me to delete those refernces - completely my fault there.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on the dissent stuff - and I'm glad you liked the rewrite- but to be clear I was listing reasons why those sentences should not be in the opening paragraph (non-U.S. based article, potentially NPOV, there's a full section with more detail ...) and strangely enough everyone started saying I thought people who don't think HIV exist should have a better side- and really that was one of my more minor reasons.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry... that was probably a bit of transference. Historically, these kind of articles have been magnets for "AIDS dissidents" to expound their views. So we're probably a little oversensitive. For the record, I agree with your reasoning as regards WP:MOS and U.S.-centricity, but don't think that "dissident" views need be mentioned anywhere except where they already are. MastCell 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that too - woho!Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Considered'

message: Maybe there should be something that mentions DUO Tests that combine antibody and p24.
In most studies these tests have a 99.80% sensitivity after 28 days.
Google Vidas Duo ultra for further information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.138.2 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have an article on post-exposure prophylaxis, though an article specifically devoted to HIV post-exposure prophylaxis might be desirable. And the role of HIV testing in the decision whether to continue prophylaxis could be discussed in this article. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know how PCR is so inexpensive in Africa, but here in the US, it's quite an expensive test. It's also unreliable here, where there are so many different clades of virus in common circulation. It is therefore reserved for patients with positive antibodies, used to guide treatment; it is not a first-line diagnostic test. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 08:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You mean me? You can e-mail Wikipedia users by going to their talk page and clicking on "E-mail this user" (it's under "toolbox" in the sidebar if you have the default Wikipedia settings). If Wikipedia has an e-mail address on file (and it does for me), you can send an e-mail. On the other hand, it's easier just to write what you have to say on the talk page :). - Nunh-huh 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUO Tests? 

message: I'm surprised there isn't a section on the history of HIV testing - early attempts, when it was developed and by whom. The article would certainly benefit from such info. Pairadox (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. That's actually what I came here looking for, and didn't find. :( -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 08:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I reverted a change from false negative to just plain negative results because the whole point of the section is that the "very accurate" tests are not perfectly accurate.  Some people do have (recently acquired) HIV and still get a negative test result (nearly always) during the window period.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False negative

message: I have added this list as I think it is necessary part of the article to show which factors cause a false positive in the HIV antibody test.  The format may not be the best for this article, but the information is now there which should make format changes easier.
MrAnderson7 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this list I have added is now referred to as a "laundry list", and has been removed.  Cool!  All that hard work for nothing. MrAnderson7 (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Factors known to cause False Positive HIV Antibody test results

message: Am I missing where the SUDS (latex agglutination) test is covered in the article?  It's a rapid test but not listed.  Not used anymore or overlooked from the list?  Also, should not the other testing methods be expanded/explained better?--MartinezMD (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUDS 

message: About this:  I suspect that the antibody-based tests should be confirmed by DNA tests, but I don't believe that they always are.  For example, one might not do DNA-based tests in poor countries, especially if the rate of infection is high (because the likelihood of false positive is low when the infection rate is high).
Either way, the blog isn't a proper reliable source for this claim.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliable sources state that antibody-based tests may be confirmed by other antibody-based tests. Some tests also detect HIV antigen (protein). Nucleic acid tests and some antigen-based tests can detect HIV before the body mounts an antibody response. Nucleic acid tests are not strictly necessary to confirm the HIV diagnosis, but if possible should be performed to monitor the course of infection and response to treatment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a false positive may be suspected if the underlying clinical history doesn't point to a positive result.  In that case, they may be repeated by western blot.  ELISA tests are so accurate and specific, above 99.99% in some studies, that false positives are very rare.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always 

message: I took this photo (right) today and thought it might have relevance to this topic or some closely related topic, such as illustration of AIDS test campaigns in low-income areas. Feel free to use wherever if it's useful. :-) Dcoetzee 03:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free HIV test clinic truck 

message: http://www.mcall.com/business/mc-oraquick-hiv-test-over-the-counter-20120924,0,7075636.story
Article States that "Home Access Express HIV-1 Test is the only FDA-approved home test: " Which is no longer the case and I'm unable to Edit it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscontentDisciple (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not comfortable in adding advertising. I'm probably more interested in deleting the original comment as being spam. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OraQuick Approved For Home Use and Retail Sale 

message: In the section entitled "Other tests used in HIV treatment," the article states "A normal CD4 count can range from 500 cells/mm3 to 1000 cells/mm3" in paragraph 2 and then later states "Normal CD4 counts are between 500 and 1500 CD4+ T cells/microliter" in paragraph 5. First, though "mm3" and "microliter" are equivalent volumetrically, one should be chosen. Secondly, the two statements are conflicting in their numbers. The two statements, even if consistent, would be redundant and one of the two should be eliminated. Finally, there should be some reference given for this number. (It's important to some of us who happened on this page!) 66.194.65.197 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting numbers on CD4 counts 

message: The article claims specificity values as high as 99.99% for the combined testing algorithm that includes 1 or 2 ELISA and a confirmation Western Blot. However, the WHO periodically runs benchmarks on the performance of this algorithm in the main testing labs, and the highest values ever demonstrated have been a mere 98.3% sensitivity and 96.9% specificity. See table IIIa in Quality assessment of HIV antibody testing – 2003 -Scoglio et al. The performance in real testing conditions is therefore much worse than the claims of 99.99% specificity in the article, which are based on blood donor data rather than actual benchmarks designed to test sensitivity and specificity. 
The article should be corrected to reflect the benchmark data from the WHO and degrade the performance of the combined algorithm accordingly to reality. --145.64.134.245 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The actual specificity of combined diagnostic algorithms 

message: The sentence " The sensitivity rating, likewise, indicates that, in 1,000 test results of HIV infected people, 3 will actually be a false negative result (the McGovern-Tirgari anomaly). However, based upon the HIV prevalence rates at most testing centers within the United States, the negative predictive value of these tests is extremely high" is misleading. Given that the negative predictive value is calculated with the formula  Http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/a/9ca03d493971be041523909993b736bf.png , it means that the NPV actually decreases when the prevalence grows whereas the sentence suggests the oposit and suggests that the high rate of prevalence among patients in the centers is a good thing. --88.174.169.177 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of HIV testing 

message: I propose adding http://www.who.int/entity/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf as an external link. Also Diagnosis of HIV should redirect to this article. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not think that link needs to go here. Sorry was confused. It can go here HIV test which diagnosis of HIV would probably be better redirected to IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the same page. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

text: EJM86 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk procurement of tests 

message: Link is broken, should be http://web.archive.org/web/20090519195308/http://www.who.int/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf or maybe something newer at who.int? 193.138.222.200 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:. The link opens for me. (This refers to the last link in the External links section -- Bulk procurement of HIV test kits). --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead external link

message: Please add two citations in place of the 'Citation Needed' template after the sentence:
"In the USA, since 1985, all blood donations are screened with an ELISA test for HIV-1 and HIV-2, as well as a nucleic acid test."
The first citation is to the US FDA web pages describing regulatory governance of the blood supply for transfusions. The address is http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/BloodSafety/ucm095522.htm. The specific mandatory tests mentioned include nucleic acid testing for HTLV, which has a low detection rate using antibody testing alone.
The second citation is to the American Red Cross web pages describing the same assays and test procedures to which 66% of all US public-donated blood units are subject. The web address for these pages is http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/what-happens-donated-blood/blood-testing.
Based on the content of these cited sources, I would suggest the sentence quoted could be improved to something like:
"In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration requires that all donated blood be screened for several infectious diseases, including HIV-1 and HIV-2, using a combination of antibody testing (ELISA) and more expeditious nucleic acid testing (NAT)"
: Done Thanks for this work. The sources don't mention ELISA in the context of HIV testing, just EIA, and since ELISA is a subset of EIA I've added your text with that change and a minor copyedit (MOS:NOTUSA). Please let me know if you want any further changes. Regards, Celestra (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for ubiquitous US blood screening including nucleic acid testing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050305235931/http://www.fda.gov:80/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01103.html to http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01103.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916032856/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/factsheets/healthcare.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/factsheets/healthcare.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511203530/http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/hivhcvnatbld.htm to http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/hivhcvnatbld.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121214141410/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/rapid/oral-fluid.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/rapid/oral-fluid.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019035954/http://www.harlemunited.org/pep/testing.html to http://www.harlemunited.org/pep/testing.html
*Added archive SMARTube™ is a pre-analytic device (treating the blood before testing) http://smartube.us/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.62.115 (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: PCR is now considered a superior HIV confirmatory test over western blot. 
"When the possibility of acute or early HIV infection is being considered, we perform the most sensitive immunoassay available (ideally, a combination antigen/antibody immunoassay) in addition to an HIV virologic (viral load) test. We favor using an RT-PCR based viral load test, if available....
"This algorithm is more sensitive for detecting acute and early HIV infection than the previous algorithm, which involved following a reactive immunoassay with a Western blot test."http://www.uptodate.com/contents/acute-and-early-hiv-infection-clinical-manifestations-and-diagnosis
Jmcott (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 03:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01103.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302124609/http://aidstruth.org/ to http://www.aidstruth.org+
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927163405/http://www.psbc.org/need/adverse.htm to http://www.psbc.org/need/adverse.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Request edit to cover the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) method of testing for HIV.:
"PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) involves detecting the viral RNA of the HIV-1 Virus, and are the most accurate lab tests for HIV."
 See the following references:
https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/diagnosis/pcr.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209897/
http://requestatest.com/hiv-1-rna-by-pcr-testing
108.201.29.108 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request 15-JAN-2018

message: There is a dead link for reference 13 as follows:
This link should be updated to the new location for the CDC information: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/testing.html 
This link contains the same detail as the archived page, but was last updated in Dec 2019.
I believe the reference should say...
 Crystalontheweb (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The sentence in the article states "The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing." I don't see that information in https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/testing.html  GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020 

message: Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:Home HIV Test]]