Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21494630›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Development and validation of decision rules to guide frequency of monitoring CD4 cell count in HIV-1 infection before starting antiretroviral therapy.

Thierry Buclin, Amalio Telenti, Rafael Perera, Chantal Csajka, Hansjakob Furrer, Jeffrey K Aronson, Paul P Glasziou

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Reply.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2014
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The basis for monitoring strategies in clinical guidelines: a case study of prostate-specific antigen for monitoring in prostate cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2012
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thierry BuclinDivision of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital Center and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. thierry.buclin@chuv.ch
Amalio Telenti
Rafael Perera
Chantal Csajka
Hansjakob Furrer
Jeffrey K Aronson
Paul P Glasziou

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough CD4 cell count monitoring is used to decide when to start antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding its optimal frequency. It is common practice to monitor every 3 to 6 months, often coupled with viral load monitoring. We developed rules to guide frequency of CD4 cell count monitoring in HIV infection before starting antiretroviral therapy, which we validated retrospectively in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe built up two prediction rules ("Snap-shot rule" for a single sample and "Track-shot rule" for multiple determinations) based on a systematic review of published longitudinal analyses of CD4 cell count trajectories. We applied the rules in 2608 untreated patients to classify their 18 061 CD4 counts as either justifiable or superfluous, according to their prior ≥5% or <5% chance of meeting predetermined thresholds for starting treatment. The percentage of measurements that both rules falsely deemed superfluous never exceeded 5%. Superfluous CD4 determinations represented 4%, 11%, and 39% of all actual determinations for treatment thresholds of 500, 350, and 200×10(6)/L, respectively. The Track-shot rule was only marginally superior to the Snap-shot rule. Both rules lose usefulness for CD4 counts coming near to treatment threshold. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Frequent CD4 count monitoring of patients with CD4 counts well above the threshold for initiating therapy is unlikely to identify patients who require therapy. It appears sufficient to measure CD4 cell count 1 year after a count >650 for a threshold of 200, >900 for 350, or >1150 for 500×10(6)/L, respectively. When CD4 counts fall below these limits, increased monitoring frequency becomes advisable. These rules offer guidance for efficient CD4 monitoring, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveDecision MakingHealth Planning GuidelinesCD4 Lymphocyte CountCohort StudiesHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumansNomogramsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID21494630
PMCPMC3072996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.