ArticlePloS one2016
Performance Evaluation of the Becton Dickinson FACSPresto™ Near-Patient CD4 Instrument in a Laboratory and Typical Field Clinic Setting in South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the BD-FACS Presto for CD4 count and hemoglobin measurement in a district hospital and rural laboratory in Ghana.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Performance Evaluation of BD FACSPrestoDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Performance of the BD FACSPresto near to patient analyzer in comparison with representative conventional CD4 instruments in Cameroon.AIDS research and therapy · 2020Article
- Categorising specimen referral delays for CD4 testing: How inter-laboratory distances and travel times impact turn-around time across a national laboratory service in South Africa.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Field Performance and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Low-Cost Instrument-Free Point-of-Care CD4 Test (Visitect CD4) Performed by Different Health Worker Cadres among Pregnant Women.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Addressing antiretroviral therapy-related diagnostic coverage gaps across South Africa using a programmatic approach.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Point-of-care diagnostics: extending the laboratory network to reach the last mile.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2017Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe BD-FACSPresto™ CD4 is a new, point-of-care (POC) instrument utilising finger-stick capillary blood sampling. This study evaluated its performance against predicate CD4 testing in South Africa.
methodsPhase-I testing: HIV+ patient samples (n = 214) were analysed on the Presto™ under ideal laboratory conditions using venous blood. During Phase-II, 135 patients were capillary-bled for CD4 testing on FACSPresto™, performed according to manufacturer instruction. Comparative statistical analyses against predicate PLG/CD4 method and industry standards were done using GraphPad Prism 6. It included Bland-Altman with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and percentage similarity with coefficient of variation (%CV) analyses for absolute CD4 count (cells/μl) and CD4 percentage of lymphocytes (CD4%).
resultsIn Phase-I, 179/217 samples yielded reportable results with Presto™ using venous blood filled cartridges. Compared to predicate, a mean bias of 40.4±45.8 (LOA of -49.2 to 130.2) and %similarity (%CV) of 106.1%±7.75 (7.3%) was noted for CD4 absolute counts. In Phase-2 field study, 118/135 capillary-bled Presto™ samples resulted CD4 parameters. Compared to predicate, a mean bias of 50.2±92.8 (LOA of -131.7 to 232) with %similarity (%CV) 105%±10.8 (10.3%), and 2.87±2.7 (LOA of -8.2 to 2.5) with similarity of 94.7±6.5% (6.83%) noted for absolute CD4 and CD4% respectively. No significant clinical differences were indicated for either parameter using two sampling methods.
conclusionThe Presto™ produced remarkable precision to predicate methods, irrespective of venous or capillary blood sampling. A consistent, clinically insignificant over-estimation (5-7%) of counts against PLG/CD4 and equivalency to FACSCount™ was noted. Further field studies are awaited to confirm longer-term use.
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.