Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Method comparison meta-analysis summary using numerical data

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

  Overall group Venous Capillary
  n = 11,803 n = 7,648 n = 4155
Reference technology    
Mean (absolute range) 428 (402–453) 436 (418–474) 411 (384–437)
Median (IQR) 383 (249–555) 390 (254–565) 371 (241–537)
Pima    
Mean (absolute range) 404 (373–425) 416 (388–444) 382 (351–412)
Median (IQR) 363 (234–524) 373 (242–534) 342 (221–507)
Agreement    
Accuracy and Precision (cells/ul)    
Mean bias (Pima - Reference) −23 −23 −24
Mean bias (CI) (−22;-25) (−21; −25) (−20; −28)
SD bias 106 93 126
Percentage similarity mean % 101 100 103
Percentage similarity SD % 87 67 116
Percentage similarity CV % 86 67 113
Percent bias (SD) >100 cells/μl n = 11037, −3.26 % (26.4) n = 7190, −3.1 % (22.5) n = 3487, −3.54 % (32.3)
Concordance correlation (Pc) 0.914 (0.911, 0.917) 0.934 (0.931, 0.937) 0.874 (0.867, 0.881)
Strength of agreement moderate moderate poor
Overall cell variance    
<100 cells/ula   34 73
100-350 cesll/ulb   38 51
350-500 cells/ulb   33 57
>500 cells/ulb   53 79
Percentage bias across all rangesc   10 % 15 %
  1. Calculated from abias SD; bpercentage similarity SD; cthe average percentage similarity >200cells/ul
  2. CV coefficient of variation, IQR interquartile range, SD standard deviation