SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2016
Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Accuracy and Acceptability of the VISITECT CD4 Advanced Disease Test Compared With the PIMA CD4 Test at the Point of Care as Part of the Advanced HIV Disease Care Package: A Mixed-Methods Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- VISITECT® CD4 advanced disease assay in routine use: Diagnostic accuracy and usability, Ethiopia and Indonesia.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- CMOS Point-of-Care Diagnostics Technologies: Recent Advances and Future Prospects.Micromachines · 2024Review
- The social lives of point-of-care tests in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-ethnography.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- Article
- Left behind on the path to 90-90-90: understanding and responding to HIV among displaced people.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022Article
- Microparticle-tagged image-based cell counting (ImmunoSpin) for CD4 + T cells.Mikrochimica acta · 2021Article
- Point-of-care diagnostics: recent developments in a pandemic age.Lab on a chip · 2021Review
- Performance characteristics of an instrument-free point-of-care CD4 test (VISITECT®CD4) for use in resource-limited settings.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Assessment of two POC technologies for CD4 count in Morocco.AIDS research and therapy · 2020Article
- Point-of-Care HIV Viral Load Testing: an Essential Tool for a Sustainable Global HIV/AIDS Response.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Field Performance of PIMA Point-of-Care Machine for CD4 Enumeration Under a Mobile HIV Counseling and Testing Program in Remote Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria, Uganda.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2019Article
- Qualitative assessment of South African healthcare worker perspectives on an instrument-free rapid CD4 test.BMC health services research · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies.
methodsEight electronic databases were searched for field studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 of six POC CD4 platforms: PointCare NOW™, Alere Pima™ CD4, Daktari™ CD4 Counter, CyFlow® CD4 miniPOC, BD FACSPresto™, and MyT4™ CD4. Due to limited data availability, meta-analysis was conducted only for diagnostic performance of Pima at a threshold of 350 cells/μl, applying a bivariate multi-level random-effects modelling approach. A covariate extended model was also explored to test for difference in diagnostic performance between capillary and venous blood.
resultsTwenty seven studies were included. Published field study results were found for three of the six POC CD4 tests, 24 of which used Pima. For Pima, test failure rates varied from 2 to 23 % across study settings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.88-0.95) and 0.87 (95 % CI = 0.85-0.88) respectively. Diagnostic performance by blood sample type (venous vs. capillary) revealed non-significant differences in sensitivity (0.94 vs 0.89) and specificity (0.86 vs 0.87), respectively in the extended model (Wald χ
conclusionsPOC CD4 testing can provides reliable results for making treatment decision under field conditions in low-resource settings. The Pima test shows a good diagnostic performance at CD4 cut-off of 350 cells/μl. More data are required to evaluate performance of POC CD4 testing using venous versus capillary blood in LMICs which might otherwise influence clinical practice.
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.