Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28529048›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunological methods2017

Laboratory-based performance evaluation of PIMA CD4+ T-lymphocyte count point-of-care by lay-counselors in Kenya.

Clement Zeh, Charles E Rose, Seth Inzaule, Mitesh A Desai, Fredrick Otieno, Felix Humwa, Benta Akoth, Paul Omolo, Robert T Chen, Yenew Kebede and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Clement ZehCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States.
Charles E RoseCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States.
Seth InzauleKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Mitesh A DesaiCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States.
Fredrick OtienoKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Felix HumwaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Benta AkothKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Paul OmoloKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Robert T ChenCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States. Electronic address: bchen@cdc.gov.
Yenew KebedeKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
Taraz SamandariCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunity Health WorkersCounselorsPoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingCD4 Lymphocyte CountDiagnostic ErrorsEquipment DesignHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumansKenyaObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsAlere PIMAPoint of care CD4 evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28529048
PMCPMC6118119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.