ArticleAIDS research and treatment2018
Early Infant Diagnosis Sample Management in Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe, 2017.
Article in AIDS research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
backgroundIn 2016, Mashonaland West Province had 7.4% (520) dried blood spot (DBS) samples for early infant diagnosis (EID) rejected by the Zimbabwe National Microbiology Reference Laboratory (NMRL). The samples were suboptimal, delaying treatment initiation for HIV-infected children. EID is the entry point to HIV treatment services in exposed infants. We determined reasons for DBS sample rejections and suggested solutions.
methodsA cause-effect analysis, modelled on Ishikawa, was used to identify factors impacting DBS sample quality. Interviewer-administered questionnaires and evaluation of sample collection process, using Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was conducted. Rejected samples were reviewed. Epi Info™ was used to analyze findings.
resultsEleven (73.3%) facilities did not adhere to SOP and (86.7%) did not evaluate DBS sample quality before sending for testing. Delayed feedback (up to 4 weeks) from NMRL extended EID delay for 14 (93.3%) of the facilities. Of the 53 participants, 62% knew valid sample identification. Insufficient samples resulted in most rejections (77.9%). Lack of training (94.3%) and ineffective supervision (69.8%) were also cited.
conclusionSample rejections could have been averted through SOP adherence. Ineffective supervision, exacerbated by delayed communication of rejections, extended EID delay, disadvantaging potential ART beneficiaries. Following this study, enhanced quality control through perstage evaluations was recommended to enhance DBS sample quality.
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.