ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of the diagnostic validity of the HIV VISITECT CD4 point-of-care rapid diagnostic test in Uganda.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHIV remains highly prevalent in Uganda, where CD4 T-cell counts are central to identifying and managing Advanced HIV Disease (AHD). Instrument-based point-of-care (POC) CD4 platforms face cost and operational constraints in resource-limited settings. The VISITECT CD4 lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) offers a non-instrument-based alternative, but its diagnostic validity against the Pima Analyzer had not been evaluated in Uganda.
objectivesTo compare diagnostic validity of the VISITECT CD4 LFA against the Pima Analyzer at the 200 cells/µL AHD threshold and explore factors influencing performance.
methodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted between June and August 2023 at three Kampala health centres. Venous blood from 351 HIV-positive adults was tested simultaneously on both platforms. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and likelihood ratios were calculated with 95% CIs using the Pima Analyzer-a point-of-care, not gold-standard, platform-as reference; estimates reflect relative, not absolute, performance.
resultsMost participants were female (68.11%), median age 31 years; mean CD4 count was 482 cells/µL (± 283.9) and AHD prevalence 22.79%. VISITECT CD4 LFA showed sensitivity of 86.25% (95% CI: 76.73-92.93), specificity of 90.41% (95% CI: 86.26-93.64), PPV of 72.63% (95% CI: 64.57-79.44), NPV of 95.70% (95% CI: 92.78-97.48), and inter-rater agreement κ = 0.957. No assessed factor significantly modified performance.
conclusionsThe VISITECT CD4 LFA performed reliably as an AHD screening tool relative to the Pima Analyzer in resource-limited settings, particularly where instrument-based platforms are unavailable. It should complement, not replace, confirmatory testing; improvements in sensitivity and PPV remain warranted.
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.