ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of point-of-care Alere Pima CD4 test for low CD4 cell counts test in Uganda.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advanced HIV Disease (AHD) remains a significant concern globally, particularly in resource-limited settings. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing, specifically the PIMA analyser, has emerged as a potential solution for managing AHD care. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the PIMA analyser in identifying patients with CD4 counts ≤ 200 cells/µL, which is crucial for timely AHD diagnosis and management. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Mildmay Uganda between April and July 2015, involving 302 HIV-positive adult patients. CD4 counts were measured using both the PIMA analyser (with capillary blood) and FACSCalibur flow cytometry (with venous blood) as the gold standard. The study calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios for the PIMA analyser at the CD4 threshold of ≤ 200 cells/µL. The study included 110 participants (62.73% female, 37.27% male) with a median age of 39 years. At the ≤ 200 cells/µL threshold, the PIMA analyser demonstrated a sensitivity of 55.56% (95% CI 21.20-86.30%), specificity of 98.02% (95% CI 93.03-99.76%), positive predictive value of 71.43% (95% CI 36.01-91.74%), and negative predictive value of 96.12% (95% CI 92.26-98.09%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 28.06 (95% CI 6.31-124.66) and 0.45 (95% CI 0.22-0.94), respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a slight negative bias of -0.1636 (95% CI - 194.8-194.5) for the PIMA analyser compared to FACSCalibur. The study found lower sensitivity for the PIMA analyser at the ≤ 200 cells/µL threshold compared to previous studies, which reported sensitivities around 96%. However, the high specificity and negative predictive value suggest good performance in correctly identifying individuals above the threshold and ruling out low CD4 counts. The discrepancy in sensitivity warrants further investigation, considering factors such as sample size, population characteristics, operator training, and environmental conditions. Despite the lower sensitivity, the PIMA analyser's portability and rapid results still offers potential benefits for decentralized AHD care in resource-limited 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.