ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2019
External Quality Assessment on CD4+ T-Cell Count Using in-House Proficiency Testing Panels for CD4 Count Laboratories in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a collaborative model for successful implementation of a National CD4 enumeration EQA program in Cameroon.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Critical Review on the Standardization and Quality Assessment of Nonfunctional Laboratory Tests Frequently Used to Identify Inborn Errors of Immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
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
backgroundCD4+ T-cell count External Quality Assessment program is important for the evaluation of performance of CD4 count laboratories. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of CD4count laboratory performance using in-house Proficiency testing panels that perform routine CD4 counts in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013/14.
methodsParticipating laboratories were 20, 23 and 25 in trials 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In-house prepared fresh whole blood samples both with "normal" and "low" CD4 values were sent to participating laboratories. Percentage and absolute counts of CD4+ T-lymphocytes were done using their routine procedures. Data were analyzed for each trial including trimmed mean, standard deviation (SD), percent coefficient of variation (%CV), residual, and standard deviation index (SDI) values for both absolute counts and percentages of CD4+ lymphocytes (%CD4).
resultsMost participating laboratories produced results that were within 2SD of the mean. Average inter-laboratory precision (trimmed %CV) was 10.87% and 5.14% for CD4 absolute counts and %CD4, respectively. For normal material, the trimmed mean %CV was 9.59% and3.23% for CD4 absolute counts and %CD4, respectively. For low material, the trimmed mean % CV was 12.15% and 7.05% for CD4 absolute counts and %CD4 respectively. BDFACSCount™ users showed the best accuracy and precision as evidenced by longitudinal analysis.
conclusionThis study was found to help facilities in early identifying their gaps with regard to their CD4 count performance and in avoiding the challenges encountered during participation in external EQA providers like the high cost, transportation problem, feedback delay and CD4laboratory coverage.
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.