ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2014
Optimising the laboratory supply chain: The key to effective laboratory services.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Viral load care of HIV-1 infected children and adolescents: A longitudinal study in rural Zimbabwe.PloS one · 2021Trial
- The need to strengthen laboratory leadership, systems, and networks to enhance outbreak detection and resilience in Africa: proceedings of a regional workshop.BMC proceedings · 2026Article
- Hematological malignancies in East Africa-Which cancers to expect and how to provide services.PloS one · 2020Article
- The network approach to laboratory procurement and supply chain management: Addressing the system issues to enhance HIV viral load scale-up.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2020Review
- Progress in Harmonizing Tiered HIV Laboratory Systems: Challenges and Opportunities in 8 African Countries.Global health, science and practice · 2016Article
- The 90 90 90 strategy to end the HIV Pandemic by 2030: Can the supply chain handle it?Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Supply Chain Management System (SCMS) is a contract managed under the Partnership for Supply Chain Management (PFSCM) consortium by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). SCMS procures commodities for programmes supported by the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). From 2005 to mid-2012, PEPFAR, through SCMS, spent approximately $384 million on non-pharmaceutical commodities. Of this, an estimated $90m was used to purchase flow cytometry technology, largely for flow cytometry platforms and reagents.
objectivesThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the cost differences between low, medium and high utilisation rates of common CD4 testing instruments that have been procured though PEPFAR funding.
methodA scale of costs per test as a function of test volume through the machine was calculated for the two most common CD4 testing machines used in HIV programmes: Becton Dickinson (BD) FACSCount™ and BD FACSCalibur™. Instrument utilisation data collected at the facility level in three selected countries were then used to calculate the onsite cost-per-test experienced in each country.
resultsCost analyses indicated that a target of at least 40% utilisation for FACSCount™ and 15% utilisation for FACSCalibur™, respectively, closely approach maximal per-test cost efficiency. The average utilisation rate for CD4 testing instruments varies widely by country, level of laboratory and partner (0% - 68%).
conclusionOur analysis indicates that, because cost-per-test is related inversely to sample throughput, the underutilisation of flow cytometry machines is resulting in an increase in average cost-per-test for many instruments.
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.