ArticleJournal of immunological methods2017
Laboratory-based performance evaluation of PIMA CD4+ T-lymphocyte count point-of-care by lay-counselors in Kenya.
Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Point of Care Diagnostics in Resource-Limited Settings: A Review of the Present and Future of PoC in Its Most Needed Environment.Biosensors · 2020Review
- A flow-through cell counting assay for point-of-care enumeration of CD4 T-cells.Journal of virological methods · 2019Article
- 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
- Onsite healthcare worker acceptability and performance of the point-of-care Pima CD4 assay in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.African journal of laboratory medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCD4+ T-lymphocyte count testing at the point-of-care (POC) may improve linkage to care of persons diagnosed with HIV-1 infection, but the accuracy of POC devices when operated by lay-counselors in the era of task-shifting is unknown. We examined the accuracy of Alere's Pima™ POC device on both capillary and venous blood when performed by lay-counselors and laboratory technicians.
methodsIn Phase I, we compared the perfomance of POC against FACSCalibur™ for 280 venous specimens by laboratory technicians. In Phase II we compared POC performance by lay-counselors versus laboratory technicians using 147 paired capillary and venous specimens, and compared these to FACSCalibur™. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman analyses, concordance correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity at treatment eligibility thresholds of 200, 350, and 500cells/μl.
resultsPhase I: POC sensitivity and specificity were 93.0% and 84.1% at 500cells/μl, respectively. Phase II: Good agreement was observed for venous POC results from both lay-counselors (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.873, bias -86.4cells/μl) and laboratory technicians (CCC=0.920, bias -65.7cells/μl). Capillary POC had good correlation: lay-counselors (CCC=0.902, bias -71.2cells/μl), laboratory technicians (CCC=0.918, bias -63.0cells/μl). Misclassification at the 500 cells/μl threshold for venous blood was 13.6% and 10.2% for lay-counselors and laboratory technicians and 12.2% for capillary blood in both groups. POC tended to under-classify the CD4 values with increasingly negative bias at higher CD4 values.
conclusionsPima™ results were comparable to FACSCalibur™ for both venous and capillary specimens when operated by lay-counselors. POC CD4 testing has the potential to improve linkage to HIV care without burdening laboratory technicians in resource-limited settings.
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.