Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Oraquick Performance CDC Article
    ranjed1987 posted:
    Dear Gail

    First I want to thank you for the help and the advises you give them to us on this forum. I want to share this information that you might know with you and everybody on this forum, Last week I sent an email to CDC asking about OraQuick Testing performance and accuracy after 3 months of a potential exposure. I received the respond 2 days ago. Like usual They referred me to their website "basic info about HIV testing". BUT They also included me an INTERESTING ARTICLE to read about OraQuick Performance.

    For my little understanding, according to this article the OraQuick test demonstrated 100% specificity and 96% sensitivity EVEN on people with highly active antiretroviral therapy with only four false-negative. These figures seems pretty good and high, which means OraQuick is reliable if testing performed according to the directions on the package kit and after 3 months window period of potential exposure would give an accurate result you can rely on.

    Here is the link to the article the CDC sent it to me, anyone can read it and have a look at it.

    I need your comment please, What do you think? So from what I little understood in this article is right or wrong?

    Thank Gail
    georgiagail responded:
    I think, as I always have that the OraQuick test is an effective test for HIV; it's easy to use, hard to screw up on and easily available for those worried about their status.

    jdm0275 replied to georgiagail's response:
    This article talks about oraquick can we apply this info to the oraquick test that was approved by fa for home testing in 2012...I have gotten neg results on this test but worry if the results are wrong and if I have put my fiance at risk
    ranjed1987 replied to jdm0275's response:
    Dear jdm0275

    Note: When I asked the CDC about HIV testing, I particularly asked them about the (Oraquick In-HOME HIV1/2 Test) AND they answered me with this article. So I think they know what I'm talking about. which means I think these Info apply in somehow to (Oraquick In-HOME HIV1/2 Test) since it is similar to oraquick advance used in clinics, health departments, doctors offices... etc...

    This is how I understood it from them. I hope I'm correct Gail !!!!!

    Helpful Tips

    What steps to take if you test positive?Expert
    Hello community, Dan, Gail and myself often answer questions around the potential risk of different exposures for those of you who are ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    27 of 40 found this helpful

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.