ArticleTherapeutic drug monitoring2019
Sources of Variability and Accuracy of Performance Assessment in the Clinical Pharmacology Quality Assurance Proficiency Testing Program for Antiretrovirals.
Article in Therapeutic drug monitoring, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Clinical Pharmacology Quality Assurance Program for Global HIV and Co-Infection Drug Development.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- HIV Pharmacology Data Repository: Setting the New Information-Sharing Standard for Clinical and Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Comparison of efavirenz levels in blood and hair with pharmacy refills as measures of adherence and predictors of viral suppression among people living with HIV in Nigeria.AIDS research and therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Clinical Pharmacology Quality Assurance (CPQA) program provides semiannual proficiency testing (PT) of antiretroviral analytes for 11 US and international clinical pharmacology laboratories (CPLs) to ensure interlaboratory comparability. In this article, we provide estimates of the main sources of variability and assess the accuracy of the algorithm for the assessment of performance.
methodsDescriptive statistics are reported from 13 PT rounds from 2010 to 2016. Eight of the most common antiretroviral analytes were examined. Variance components analysis was used to rank the relative contributions of CPLs, antiretroviral analyte, and concentration category (low, medium, and high) to bias and variability using mixed models. Binary classification metrics of the PT assessment algorithm are calculated in comparison with a model using 95% prediction limits around estimated regression equations.
resultsCPLs provided 4109 reported concentrations of 65 unique samples for each of the 8 antiretroviral analytes across 13 PT rounds. Individual CPL accounted for the greatest amount of total variability (4.4%). Individual CPL and analyte combination (interaction) accounted for the greatest amount of bias (8.1%). Analyte alone accounted for 0.5% or less for total variability and bias. Overall, using a ±20% acceptance window around the final target, 97% of individual reported concentrations were scored acceptable, and 96% of antiretroviral/round scores were deemed satisfactory. Comparison with the regression model gave 100% sensitivity but only 34.47% specificity. Narrowing the acceptance window to ±15% improved specificity to 84.47% while maintaining a 99.17% sensitivity.
conclusionsThe current CPQA PT scoring algorithm that use a ±20% acceptance window seems to suffer from a low specificity and may be too lenient. A stricter ±15% acceptance window would increase specificity and overall accuracy while lowering the overall pass rate by only 3%.
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.