ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Performance characteristics of an instrument-free point-of-care CD4 test (VISITECT®CD4) for use in resource-limited settings.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCD4+ T lymphocyte count remains the most common biomarker of immune status and disease progression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals. VISITECT®CD4 is an instrument-free, low-cost point-of-care CD4 test with a cut-off of 350 CD4 cells/μL. This study aimed to evaluate VISITECT®CD4 test's diagnostic accuracy.
methodsTwo hundred HIV-positive patients attending a tertiary HIV centre in South India were recruited. Patients provided venous blood for reference and VISITECT®CD4 tests. An additional finger-prick blood sample was obtained for VISITECT®CD4. VISITECT®CD4's diagnostic performance in identifying individuals with CD4 counts ≤350 cells/μL was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) taking flow cytometry as the reference.
resultsThe overall agreement between VISITECT®CD4 and flow cytometry was 89.5% using venous blood and 81.5% using finger-prick blood. VISITECT®CD4 showed better performance using venous blood [sensitivity: 96.6% (95% confidence interval: 92.1%-98.9%), specificity: 70.9% (57.1%-82.4%), PPV: 89.7% (83.9%-94.0%) and NPV: 88.6% (75.4%-96.2%)] than using finger-prick blood [sensitivity: 84.8% (77.9%-90.2%), specificity: 72.7% (59.0%-83.9%), PPV: 89.1% (82.7%-93.8%) and NPV: 64.5% (51.3%-76.3%)].
conclusionVISITECT®CD4 performed well using venous blood, demonstrating its potential utility in decentralization of CD4 testing services in resource-constrained settings.
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.