ArticlePloS one2018
Evaluation of Specimen Types for Pima CD4 Point-of-Care Testing: Advantages of Fingerstick Blood Collection into an EDTA Microtube.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEffective point-of-care testing (POCT) is reliant on optimal specimen collection, quality assured testing, and expedited return of results. Many of the POCT are designed to be used with fingerstick capillary blood to simplify the blood collection burden. However, fingerstick blood collection has inherent errors in sampling. An evaluation of the use of capillary and venous blood with CD4 POCT was conducted.
methodsThree different specimen collection methods were evaluated for compatibility using the Alere Pima CD4 assay at 5 HIV/AIDS healthcare sites in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. At each site, whole blood specimens were collected from enrolled patients by venipuncture and fingerstick. Pima CD4 testing was performed at site of collection on venipuncture specimens (Venous) and fingerstick blood directly applied to a Pima CD4 cartridge (Capillary-Direct) and collected into an EDTA microtube (Capillary-Microtube). Venous blood was also tested at the laboratory by the reference CD4 method and Pima for comparison analysis.
resultsAll three specimen collection methods were successfully collected by healthcare workers for use with the Pima CD4 assay. When compared to the reference CD4 method, Pima CD4 testing with the Capillary-Microtube method performed similarly to Venous, while Pima CD4 counts with the Capillary-Direct method were slightly more biased (-20 cells/μL) and variable (-229 to +189 cells/μL limit of agreement). Even though all three collection methods had similar invalid Pima testing rates (10.5%, 9.8%, and 8.3% for Capillary-Direct, Capillary-Microtube, and Venous respectively), the ability to perform repeat testing with Capillary-Microtube and Venous specimens increased the likelihood of acquiring a valid CD4 result with the Pima assay.
conclusionsCapillary blood, either directly applied to Pima CD4 cartridges or collected in an EDTA microtube, and venous blood are suitable specimens for Pima CD4 testing. The advantages of capillary blood collection in an EDTA microtube are that it uses fingerstick collection which mimics venous blood and allows extra testing without additional blood collection.
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.