Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Clinical relevance of meta-analysis findings, for venous and capillary derived specimen testing by the Pima CD4

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

Clinical questions Venous derived specimen testing Capillary derived specimen testing
Is Pima suitable for screening for reflex testing of CryAg testing at the 100 cells/μl threshold? Suitable: 88 % sensitive, Negative bias of 34 cells/μl, 1.8 % total misclassification, Good specificity >97 % Not suitable: 79 % sensitivity, Negative bias of 73 cells/μl, 3.5 % total misclassification, Good specificity >97 %
Is Pima suitable for identifying patients eligible for ART initiation at 350 cell/μl (WHO 2010 guidelines)?  
Suitable: >91 % sensitive, Negative bias 38-51cells/μl. Suitable: >91 % sensitive, Negative bias 38-51cells/μl.
Expect 9.2 % (6.3 % false positive) total misclassification with specificity of 89 % Expect 13.8 % (9.3 % false positive) total misclassification with specificity of 82 %,
Will increase treatment costs significantly more than venous testing.
Is Pima suitable for identifying patients eligible for ART initiation at 500 cells/μl (WHO 2013 guidelines)?  
Suitable: >95 % sensitive, Negative bias 53-79 cells/μl Suitable: >95 % sensitive, Negative bias 53-79 cells/μl
Expect 8.3 % (6.3 % false positive) total misclassification with 81 % specificity Expect 11 % (7.5 % false positive)total misclassification with 74 % specificity Will increase treatment costs significantly more than venous testing.