Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24044627›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2013

Comparison of point-of-care versus laboratory-based CD4 cell enumeration in HIV-positive pregnant women.

Landon Myer, Kristen Daskilewicz, James McIntyre, Linda-Gail Bekker

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Landon MyerSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. Landon.Myer@uct.ac.za
Kristen Daskilewicz
James McIntyre
Linda-Gail Bekker
University of Cape Town · ZADesmond Tutu HIV Foundation · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEarly initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in eligible pregnant women is a key intervention for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV. However, in many settings in sub-Saharan Africa where ART-eligibility is determined by CD4 cell counts, limited access to laboratories presents a significant barrier to rapid ART initiation. Point-of-care (POC) CD4 cell count testing has been suggested as one approach to overcome this challenge, but there are few data on the agreement between POC CD4 cell enumeration and standard laboratory-based testing.

methodsWorking in a large antenatal clinic in Cape Town, South Africa, we compared POC CD4 cell enumeration (using the Alere Pima(TM) Analyzer) to laboratory-based flow cytometry in consecutive HIV-positive pregnant women. Bland-Altman methods were used to compare the two methods, including analyses by subgroups of participant gestational age.

resultsAmong the 521 women participating, the median gestational age was 23 weeks, and the median CD4 cell count according to POC and laboratory-based methods was 388 and 402 cells/µL, respectively. On average, the Pima POC test underestimated CD4 cell count relative to flow cytometry: the mean difference (laboratory test minus Pima POC) was 22.7 cells/µL (95% CI, 16.1 to 29.2), and the limits of agreement were -129.2 to 174.6 cells/µL. When analysed by gestational age categories, there was a trend towards increasing differences between laboratory and POC testing with increasing gestational age; in women more than 36 weeks' gestation, the mean difference was 45.0 cells/µL (p=0.04). DISCUSSION: These data suggest reasonable overall agreement between Pima POC CD4 testing and laboratory-based flow cytometry among HIV-positive pregnant women. The finding for decreasing agreement with increasing gestational age requires further investigation, as does the operational role of POC CD4 testing to increase access to ART within PMTCT programmes.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsAdultCD4 Lymphocyte CountClinical Laboratory TechniquesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleSouth AfricaYoung Adultantiretroviral therapyCD4 cell countHIVpoint-of-care testpregnancyreliabilitySouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID24044627
PMCPMC3776301
OpenAlexW2013496679

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.