ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Assessment of the Impact of Rapid Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Primary Healthcare Clinic Settings: A Survey Study of Client and Provider Perspectives.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care CD4 testing: Differentiated care for the most vulnerable.Journal of global health · 2022Trial
- The potential promise and pitfalls of point-of-care viral load monitoring to expedite HIV treatment decision-making in rural Uganda: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers to in vitro diagnostics implementation in resource-limited settings: A scoping review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2023Article
- Optimizing viral load suppression in Kenyan children on antiretroviral therapy (Opt4Kids).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Article
- Point-of-Care Diagnostic Services as an Integral Part of Health Services during the Novel Coronavirus 2019 Era.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe high burden of disease in South Africa presents challenges to public health services. Point-of-care (POC) technologies have the potential to address these gaps and improve healthcare systems. This study ascertained the acceptability and impact of POC CD4 testing on patients' health and clinical management.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative survey study with patients (
resultsPatients (99%) at Lancers and Chesterville PHCs were positive about POC CD4 testing, identifying benefits: No loss/delay of test results (6.4%), cost/time saving (19.5%), and no anxiety (5.1%), and 58.2% were ready to initiate treatment. Significantly more patients at Chesterville than Lancers Road PHC felt POC would provide rapid clinical decision making (64.7% vs. 48.1%;
conclusionThe high acceptability of POC CD4 testing and the immediate health, structural, and clinical management benefits necessitates POC implementation studies.
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.