This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Viral Infections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Diagnosis  • Liver/ Biliary Tract/ Pancreatic Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ana M. Contreras, MSc; Rodolfo J. Ochoa-Jiménez, MD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We have carefully read the report about the hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection screening tool to identify patients at risk for HCV infection in primary care by McGinn et al,¹ and we note that HCV prevalence was established only on the basis of the antibody (anti-HCV) results. It did not include supplemental testing to confirm the positive anti-HCV results. We think this is a golden opportunity for a healthy debate and to remember that a high rate of false-positive results occurs in low-prevalence populations (range, 15%-60%).² In the study by McGinn et al,¹ subjects who were found to be reactive for HCV antibodies were considered positive, and then the analyses erroneously included a proportion of false-positive antibody results. This explained the elevated prevalence for positive HCV antibodies (8.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.7%-10.2%) reported by the authors. Despite the accuracy of third-generation immunoassays . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Validation of a Hepatitis C Screening Tool in Primary Care
Thomas McGinn, Nicola O’Connor-Moore, David Alfandre, Donald Gardenier, and Juan Wisnivesky
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):2009-2013.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT