ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2014
WHO multicenter evaluation of FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 T-cell count systems: instrument performance and misclassification of HIV-infected patients.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Acceptability and feasibility of point-of-care CD4 testing on HIV continuum of care in low and middle income countries: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Initiating Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV at a Patient's First Clinic Visit: The RapIT Randomized Controlled Trial.PLoS medicine · 2016Trial
- Performance comparison of CD4 T-cell count instruments based on data from the national proficiency testing program in China, 2016-2023.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Slow virologic control but strong immune and metabolic recovery with dolutegravir-anchored therapy in an HIV cohort in Ghana.Virology journal · 2025Article
- VISITECT® CD4 advanced disease assay in routine use: Diagnostic accuracy and usability, Ethiopia and Indonesia.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- Immunovirological discordance among female sex workers who start antiretroviral therapy in Burkina Faso.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Performance of the BD FACSPresto near to patient analyzer in comparison with representative conventional CD4 instruments in Cameroon.AIDS research and therapy · 2020Article
- Assessment of two POC technologies for CD4 count in Morocco.AIDS research and therapy · 2020Article
- Article
- Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Article
- The performance of BD FACSPresto™ for CD4 T-cell count, CD4% and hemoglobin concentration test in Ethiopia.PloS one · 2017Article
- Performance evaluation of the touchscreen-based Muse™ Auto CD4/CD4% single-platform system for CD4 T cell numeration in absolute number and in percentage using blood samples from children and adult patients living in the Central African Republic.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- CD4 Variability in Malawi: Implications for Use of a CD4 Threshold of 500 Cells/mmOpen forum infectious diseases · 2016Article
- "Can't you initiate me here?": Challenges to timely initiation on antiretroviral therapy among methadone clients in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.The International journal on drug policy · 2016Article
- Article
- 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
- Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Infected Patients Accept Finger Stick Blood Collection for Point-Of-Care CD4 Testing.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCD4⁺ T-cell counts are used to screen and follow-up HIV-infected patients during treatment. As part of the World Health Organization prequalification program of diagnostics, we conducted an independent multicenter evaluation of the FACSCount CD4 and the Pima CD4, using the FACSCalibur as reference method.
methodsA total of 440 paired capillary and venous blood samples were collected from HIV-infected patients attending the HIV outpatient clinic in Antwerp, Belgium, and the HIV care and treatment center in Dar es Salam, Tanzania. Capillary blood was run on Pima analyzer, whereas venous blood was analyzed on FACSCount, Pima, and FACSCalibur instruments. Precision and agreement between methods were assessed.
resultsThe FACSCount CD4 results were in agreement with the FACSCalibur results with relative bias of 0.4% and 3.1% on absolute CD4 counts and an absolute bias of -0.6% and -1.1% on CD4% in Antwerp and Dar es Salam, respectively. The Pima CD4 results were in agreement with the FACSCalibur results with relative bias of -4.1% and -9.4% using venous blood and of -9.5% and -0.9% using capillary blood in Antwerp and Dar es Salam, respectively. At the threshold of 350 cells per microliter, the FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 using venous and capillary blood misclassified 7%, 9%, and 13% of patients, respectively.
conclusionsThe FACSCount CD4 provides reliable CD4 counts and CD4% and is suitable for monitoring adult and pediatric HIV patients in moderate-volume settings. The Pima CD4 is more suitable for screening eligible adult HIV patients for antiretroviral treatment initiation in low-volume laboratories.
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.