ArticlePloS one2016
Evaluation of the FACSPresto, a New Point of Care Device for the Enumeration of CD4% and Absolute CD4+ T Cell Counts in HIV Infection.
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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of the BD-FACS Presto for CD4 count and hemoglobin measurement in a district hospital and rural laboratory in Ghana.PloS one · 2019Trial
- VISITECT® CD4 advanced disease assay in routine use: Diagnostic accuracy and usability, Ethiopia and Indonesia.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- Peripheral blood lymphocyte immunophenotyping (TBNK) - a comparison of BD FACSCanto II and BD FACSLyric flow cytometry analysers.Central-European journal of immunology · 2024Article
- Article
- Performance Evaluation of BD FACSPrestoDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Microparticle-tagged image-based cell counting (ImmunoSpin) for CD4 + T cells.Mikrochimica acta · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a collaborative model for successful implementation of a National CD4 enumeration EQA program in Cameroon.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- 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
- Qualitative assessment of South African healthcare worker perspectives on an instrument-free rapid CD4 test.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEnumeration of CD4+ T lymphocytes is important for pre-ART disease staging and screening for opportunistic infections, however access to CD4 testing in resource limited settings is poor. Point of care (POC) technologies can facilitate improved access to CD4 testing. We evaluated the analytical performance of a novel POC device the FACSPresto compared to the FACSCalibur as a reference standard and to the PIMA, a POC device in widespread use in sub-Saharan Africa.
methodSpecimens were obtained from 253 HIV infected adults. Venous blood samples were analyzed on the FACSPresto and the FACSCalibur, in a subset of 41 samples additional analysis was done on the PIMA.
resultsThe absolute CD4 count results obtained on the FACSPresto were comparable to those on the FACSCalibur with low absolute (9.5cells/μl) and relative bias (3.2%). Bias in CD4% values was also low (1.06%) with a relative bias of 4.9%. The sensitivity was lower at a CD4 count threshold of ≤350cells/μl compared with ≤500cells/μl (84.9% vs. 92.8%) resulting in a high upward misclassification rate at low CD4 counts. Specificity at thresholds of ≤350cells/μl and ≤500cells/μl were 96.6% and 96.8% respectively. The PIMA had a high absolute (-68.6cells/μl) and relative bias (-10.5%) when compared with the FACSCalibur. At thresholds of ≤350cells/μl and ≤500cells/μl the sensitivity was 100% and 95.5% respectively; specificity was 85.7% and 84.2% respectively. The coefficients of repeatability were 4.13%, 5.29% and 9.8% respectively. DISCUSSION: The analytic performance of the FACSPresto against the reference standard was very good with better agreement and precision than the PIMA. The FACSPresto had comparable sensitivity at a threshold of 500 cells/μl and better specificity than the PIMA. However the FACSPresto showed reduced sensitivity at low CD4 count thresholds.
conclusionThe FACSPresto can be reliably used as a POC device for enumerating absolute CD4 count and CD4% values.
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.