ArticleBMC infectious diseases2018
Validation of CD4
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced in immunological monitoring of HIV infection: profile of immune cells and cytokines in people living with HIV-1 in Benin.BMC immunology · 2024Article
- The combination of CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11 levels during primary HIV infection predicts HIV disease progression.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Incidence and associated factors of type 2 diabetes mellitus onset in the Brazilian HIV/AIDS cohort study.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe HIV-Brazil Cohort Study (HIV-BCS) is a research primarily based on data collection from medical records of people living with HIV/AIDS in Brazil. The aim of this study was to present the validating design and results for the laboratory biomarkers viral load and CD4+ T-cell count from the HIV-Brazil Cohort Study.
methodsA total of 8007 patients who were started cART from 2003 to 2013 were considered eligible for this study. Total follow-up time was 32,397 years. The median duration of follow-up was 3.51 years (interquartile range - IQR 1.63-6.13 years; maximum 11.51 years). We used secondary data from the Brazilian Laboratory Tests Control System (SISCEL). Incidence of lab testing rates per 100 person years (100 py) were used to compare the number of laboratory tests carried out among cohort sites considering different databases for CD4+ T-cell counts and HIV viral load assessments. Descriptive statistics including 95% confidence interval, Pearson correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman agreement analysis and kappa coefficient agreement were applied for analysis.
resultsA total of 80,302 CD4+ T-cell counts and 79,997 HIV viral load assessments were observed in HIV-BCS versus 94,083 CD4+ T-cell counts and 84,810 viral loads from the Brazilian Laboratory Tests Control System. The general CD4+ T-cell HIV-BCS testing rate was 247 per 100 py versus 290 per 100 py and the viral load HIV-BCS testing rate was 246 per 100 py versus 261 per 100 py. The general correlation observed for the lowest quantitative CD4+ T-cell count before cART was 0.970 (p < 0.001) and for the log of the highest viral load before cART was 0.971 (p < 0.001). The general agreement coefficient for categorized CD4+ T-cell count was 0.932 (p < 0.001) and for viral load was 0.996 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe current study confirms that biomarkers CD4
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.