↓ Skip to main content

A meta-analysis of the performance of the PimaTM CD4 for point of care testing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A meta-analysis of the performance of the PimaTM CD4 for point of care testing
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0396-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley E. Scott, Jennifer Campbell, Larry Westerman, Luc Kestens, Lara Vojnov, Luciana Kohastsu, John Nkengasong, Trevor Peter, Wendy Stevens

Abstract

The Alere point-of-care (POC) Pima™ CD4 analyzer allows for decentralized testing and expansion to testing antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility. A consortium conducted a pooled multi-data technical performance analysis of the Pima CD4. Primary data (11,803 paired observations) comprised 22 independent studies between 2009-2012 from the Caribbean, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, USA and Europe, using 6 laboratory-based reference technologies. Data were analyzed as categorical (including binary) and numerical (absolute) observations using a bivariate and/or univariate random effects model when appropriate. At a median reference CD4 of 383 cells/μl the mean Pima CD4 bias is -23 cells/μl (average bias across all CD4 ranges is 10 % for venous and 15 % for capillary testing). Sensitivity of the Pima CD4 is 93 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.4 % - 94.9 %) at 350 cells/μl and 96 % (CI 95.2 % - 96.9 %) at 500 cells/μl, with no significant difference between venous and capillary testing. Sensitivity reduced to 86 % (CI 82 % - 89 %) at 100 cells/μl (for Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening), with a significant difference between venous (88 %, CI: 85 % - 91 %) and capillary (79 %, CI: 73 % - 84 %) testing. Total CD4 misclassification is 2.3 % cases at 100 cells/μl, 11.0 % at 350 cells/μl and 9.5 % at 500 cells/μl, due to higher false positive rates which resulted in more patients identified for treatment. This increased by 1.2 %, 2.8 % and 1.8 %, respectively, for capillary testing. There was no difference in Pima CD4 misclassification between the meta-analysis data and a population subset of HIV+ ART naïve individuals, nor in misclassification among operator cadres. The Pima CD4 was most similar to Beckman Coulter PanLeucogated CD4, Becton Dickinson FACSCalibur and FACSCount, and less similar to Partec CyFlow reference technologies. The Pima CD4 may be recommended using venous-derived specimens for screening (100 cells/μl) for reflex CrAg screening and for HIV ART eligibility at 350 cells/μl and 500 cells/μl thresholds using both capillary and venous derived specimens. These meta-analysis findings add to the knowledge of acceptance criteria of the Pima CD4 and future POC tests, but implementation and impact will require full costing analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 25%
Other 13 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 18 22%
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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,050
of 3,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,781
of 263,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#73
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 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 3,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 263,272 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 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.