HIV Prevention Community
Why was my first test reported as NR Reference Range?
About This Community:

If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing, or have questions about the effectiveness of condoms or risks associated with specific sexual practices, this is the site for you.

Font Size:
A
A
A
Background:
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank Blank

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?
Related Discussions
9 Comments Post a Comment
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
what was your exposure?...to a male or female?
Blank
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.
Blank
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.  )

Blank
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.
Blank
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.
Blank
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!
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
How about false negatives?
Blank
219662_tn?1223862160
As far as I know, no significant difference in that regard - same window period rules apply of course
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
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.
Blank
Post a Comment
To
Blank
Weight Tracker
Weight Tracker
Start Tracking Now
HIV Prevention Community Resources
RSS Expert Activity
469720_tn?1388149949
Blank
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm-treatable... Blank
Oct 04 by Lee Kirksey, MDBlank
242532_tn?1269553979
Blank
The 3 Essentials to Ending Emotiona...
Sep 18 by Roger Gould, M.D.Blank
242532_tn?1269553979
Blank
Control Emotional Eating with this ...
Sep 04 by Roger Gould, M.D.Blank
Top HIV Answerers
Avatar_m_tn
Blank
Midnight_Sun
186166_tn?1385262982
Blank
LIZZIE LOU
Auburn, AL
Avatar_m_tn
Blank
Jcc1970
KY
366749_tn?1370585676
Blank
diver58
Karachi, Pakistan
3149845_tn?1415046551
Blank
Life360
fort lauderdale, FL
Avatar_m_tn
Blank
chipdawg
Thailand