Aa
A
A
Close
232690 tn?1189759429
Why was my first test reported as NR Reference Range?
Now that I got my second test, there's a question no one could answer. Why did the first test say the ELISA was "Reactive: Antibody detected   [Reference Range=NR]"
What gives? Why'd it say "antibody detected" if the same test said the Reference Range was non-reactive?
Cancel
9 Answers
9 Answers
Page 1 of 1
Avatar universal
what was your exposure?...to a male or female?
Comment
Cancel
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
232690 tn?1189759429
Does it sound like it was barely reactive, but too faint to be considered weakly reactive, or probably human error? It doesn't make sense to me and the counsellors I talked to could not answer.
Comment
Cancel
232690 tn?1189759429
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
172023 tn?1334675884
I remember you.  You said you had a false positive HIV test, with a negative Western Blot.

The normal result on the Elisa would be NR, or Non Reactive.  Yours was Reactive, meaning the antibody was detected.  If you had a Western Blot that was negative at the appropriate time, you had a false positive Elisa.

(The Reference Range on a test is the normal, expected result.  NR means Non Reactive.  So the expected result was NR, and you were reactive.  Falsely, it turns out.  )

Comment
Cancel
172023 tn?1334675884
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
219662 tn?1223862160
Reference range is just the "normal range" of the assay.
Yours was outside the "normal range", hence the result was interpreted as positive.

Look, you have no reasons to worry at this point.  There is overwhelming evidence now that your original test was a false positive.  You don't have HIV.

By the way, incidents like yours are exactly the reason why I don't recommend anyone to test after single low-risk exposures.  Your decision to take an HIV test was a mistake.
Comment
Cancel
219662 tn?1223862160
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
232690 tn?1189759429
I am glad I tested. I would have still been worried if I had not tested. My only regret is taking the oral swab test the first time. I would have refused an oral test if I knew about the false positive rates of oral tests. The second test was a full panel BLOOD test, which tested for everything, so I know I'm clean of other things.
Comment
Cancel
232690 tn?1189759429
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
219662 tn?1223862160
Oh yes man, rapid tests are notorious for that, especially oraquicks.  I wish you had mentioned it earlier... Either way, it's all over, congrats on your results!
Comment
Cancel
219662 tn?1223862160
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
Avatar universal
How about false negatives?
Comment
Cancel
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
219662 tn?1223862160
As far as I know, no significant difference in that regard - same window period rules apply of course
Comment
Cancel
219662 tn?1223862160
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
Avatar universal
Yes it is good you tested. Low risk does not mean NO risk. You never tell someone NOT to test because of having a low risk. Testing is the only way to find out ones status. A confirmative test is in place for a reason. To make sure your orginal test is a true positive. It doesn't matter if it was a rapid test or a conventional ELISA test both can give false positive results.
Comment
Cancel
Avatar universal
Comment
Comment
Submit Comment
Your Answer
232690 tn?1189759429
Answer
Know how to answer? Tap here to leave your answer...
Answer
Submit Answer
A
A
Blank
Weight Tracker
Weight Tracker
Start Tracking Now
HIV Prevention Community Resources
Top HIV Answerers
13276481 tn?1451150367
Blank
iommi
NJ
370181 tn?1428180348
Blank
RubyWitch
Arlington, WA
Avatar m tn
Blank
alderick84
Bogotá, Colombia
366749 tn?1370585676
Blank
diver58
Karachi, Pakistan
1508374 tn?1380812110
Blank
BeStrong_
Athens, Greece
Avatar m tn
Blank
B23121