↓ Skip to main content

Duplicate analysis method: a cheaper alternative to commercial IQC materials in limited resource settings for monitoring CD4 testing

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS Research and Therapy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Duplicate analysis method: a cheaper alternative to commercial IQC materials in limited resource settings for monitoring CD4 testing
Published in
AIDS Research and Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12981-015-0067-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashwini Shete, Dharmesh P Singh, Bharati Mahajan, Amol Kokare, Ramesh Paranjape, Madhuri Thakar

Abstract

India has a large number of HIV infected patients being followed up at anti-retroviral therapy (ART) centers. The patients are regularly offered CD4 count estimation for deciding their eligibility for ART initiation as well as for monitoring response to ART, making CD4 count estimation a very critical test. Hence, quality control of CD4 testing is utmost important for ultimate success of ART program. As the commercial controls are very expensive, internal quality control (IQC), at present, is being done by duplicate analysis method using previous day samples in most of the laboratories. Hence the study was undertaken to review performance of duplicate analysis method for monitoring daily IQC. Quality control (QC) data from 11 Indian laboratories using duplicate analysis and/or commercial controls for IQC of CD4 testing was collected for reviewing information on QC parameters such as precision, accuracy and trend monitoring. Precision was determined by r(2) values and mean % variation for duplicate analysis and coefficient of variation (% CV) for commercial controls. Accuracy was monitored by rate of QC failures for both the types of control and trend monitoring was done by plotting LJ charts for commercial controls and by plotting daily % variation for duplicate analysis. The laboratories using duplicate analysis for IQC showed good precision with mean % variation ranging from 0.5 to 7.2. There was good match between r(2) values and % CV of the laboratories performing both the types of QC methods. Rates of QC failures were 2.3 for duplicate analysis and 3 per laboratory-year for IMMUNO-TROL controls. Daily trend monitoring showed fluctuation of daily counts around mean in LJ charts and of percent variation around 0% in duplicate analysis method. Commercially available controls showed limitations such as altered specimen quality leading to difficulties in manual gating and issues with the establishment of laboratory range. Duplicate analysis can serve as a cheaper alternative to commercially available controls for IQC of CD4 testing especially when supplemented with other QC measures for controlling variations caused by reagent, equipment, staff and environment in addition to the successful participation in External Quality Assurance programme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Lecturer 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,342,608
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from AIDS Research and Therapy
#353
of 551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,194
of 264,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS Research and Therapy
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.