ArticleAIDS research and therapy2015
Duplicate analysis method: a cheaper alternative to commercial IQC materials in limited resource settings for monitoring CD4 testing.
Article in AIDS research and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndia has a large number of HIV infected patients being followed up at anti-retroviral therapy (ART) centers. The patients are regularly offered CD4 count estimation for deciding their eligibility for ART initiation as well as for monitoring response to ART, making CD4 count estimation a very critical test. Hence, quality control of CD4 testing is utmost important for ultimate success of ART program. As the commercial controls are very expensive, internal quality control (IQC), at present, is being done by duplicate analysis method using previous day samples in most of the laboratories. Hence the study was undertaken to review performance of duplicate analysis method for monitoring daily IQC.
methodsQuality control (QC) data from 11 Indian laboratories using duplicate analysis and/or commercial controls for IQC of CD4 testing was collected for reviewing information on QC parameters such as precision, accuracy and trend monitoring. Precision was determined by r(2) values and mean % variation for duplicate analysis and coefficient of variation (% CV) for commercial controls. Accuracy was monitored by rate of QC failures for both the types of control and trend monitoring was done by plotting LJ charts for commercial controls and by plotting daily % variation for duplicate analysis.
resultsThe laboratories using duplicate analysis for IQC showed good precision with mean % variation ranging from 0.5 to 7.2. There was good match between r(2) values and % CV of the laboratories performing both the types of QC methods. Rates of QC failures were 2.3 for duplicate analysis and 3 per laboratory-year for IMMUNO-TROL controls. Daily trend monitoring showed fluctuation of daily counts around mean in LJ charts and of percent variation around 0% in duplicate analysis method. Commercially available controls showed limitations such as altered specimen quality leading to difficulties in manual gating and issues with the establishment of laboratory range.
conclusionDuplicate analysis can serve as a cheaper alternative to commercially available controls for IQC of CD4 testing especially when supplemented with other QC measures for controlling variations caused by reagent, equipment, staff and environment in addition to the successful participation in External Quality Assurance programme.
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.