ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2013
Comparison of point-of-care versus laboratory-based CD4 cell enumeration in HIV-positive pregnant women.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Toward Improving Accessibility of Point-of-Care Diagnostic Services for Maternal and Child Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Point of care · 2019Article
- Evaluation of PIMATM CD4 System for Decentralization of Immunological Monitoring of HIV-Infected Patients in Senegal.PloS one · 2016Article
- PIMA™ point-of-care testing for CD4 counts in predicting antiretroviral initiation in HIV-infected individuals in KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Implementation and Operational Research: Decentralization Does Not Assure Optimal Delivery of PMTCT and HIV-Exposed Infant Services in a Low Prevalence Setting.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2015Article
- Errors generated by a point-of-care CD4+ T-lymphocyte analyser: a retrospective observational study in nine countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015Observational
- Evolution of antiretroviral therapy services for HIV-infected pregnant women in Cape Town, South Africa.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2015Article
- Field Evaluation of a Point-of-Care CD4 Analyzer for Monitoring HIV Patients in the Interior of the Amazon Region, Brazil.PloS one · 2015Article
- Factors influencing CD4 cell count in HIV-positive pregnant women in a secondary health center in Lagos, Nigeria.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Article
- Article
- WHO multicenter evaluation of FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 T-cell count systems: instrument performance and misclassification of HIV-infected patients.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014Article
- Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2014Review
- Point of care diagnostics for sexually transmitted infections: perspectives and advances.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.