ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Accuracy and Acceptability of the VISITECT CD4 Advanced Disease Test Compared With the PIMA CD4 Test at the Point of Care as Part of the Advanced HIV Disease Care Package: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: CD4 testing is the first step of the advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease (AHD) care package. The semiquantitative VISITECT CD4 Advanced Disease test (VISITECT; AccuBio) is increasingly used but has variable reported performance. We compared its diagnostic accuracy and acceptability with that of the PIMA CD4 test (PIMA; Abbott) at the point of care within the AHD care package. Methods: A mixed-methods study was embedded in a community-based tuberculosis case-finding trial in South Africa. Following a VISITECT batch recall (April 2023), a sample of trial participants with HIV underwent VISITECT and PIMA testing in parallel on a single venous blood sample. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. We conducted in-depth-interviews with people with HIV (PWH), focus group discussions with nurses, and participant observations with nurse-PWH pairs. Results: Among 609 included PWH, 76 (12.5%) were found to have CD4 cell counts ≤200/µL with VISITECT versus 28 (4.8%) with PIMA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for VISITECT, compared with PIMA, were 89.3% (95% confidence interval, 71.8%-97.7%), 91.2% (95% CI, 88.6%-93.4%), 32.9% (95% CI, 22.5%-44.6%) and 99.4% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.9%), respectively. Three VISITECT results (0.05%) were false-negative (CD4 cell counts, 16/µL, 82/µL, 175/µL) and 51 (8.4%) were false-positive (median CD4 cell count, 563/µL [interquartile range, 382-739/µL]). PWH and public sector nurses believed that point-of-care CD4 tests improve access to CD4 cell counts. Study nurses preferred PIMA to VISITECT in terms of accuracy, duration, user-friendliness, and yielding of a numeric CD4 result. Conclusions: Compared with PIMA, VISITECT had good diagnostic accuracy but low PPV and was less acceptable to study nurses. The role of VISITECT should be further evaluated.
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.