+1 Recommend
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Head to head comparisons in performance of CD4 point–of-care assays: A Bayesian meta-analysis (2000-2013)'

    Head to head comparisons in performance of CD4 point–of-care assays: A Bayesian meta-analysis (2000-2013)Crossref
    Well written, comprehensive, need of the hour article
    Average rating:
        Rated 4.5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Head to head comparisons in performance of CD4 point–of-care assays: A Bayesian meta-analysis (2000-2013)

    Background: Timely detection, staging, treatment initiation are pertinent to controlling HIV Infection. CD4+ cell-based point-of-care (POC) devices offer the potential to rapidly stage patients, and decide on initiating treatment, but a comparative evaluation of their performance has not yet been performed. With this in mind, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods: For the period Jan 2000 to April 2015, 19 databases were systematically searched, 6619 citations retrieved, and 25 articles selected. Diagnostic performance was compared across devices (i.e., PIMA, CyFlow, miniPOC, MBioCD4 System) and across specimens (i.e., capillary blood vs. venous blood). A Bayesian approach was used to meta-analyze the data. The primary outcome, the Bland-Altman (BA) mean bias (which represents agreement between cell counts from POC device and flow cytometry), was analyzed with a Bayesian hierarchical normal model. Findings: We performed a head-to-head comparison of two point-of-care devices, PIMA and PointCareNOW CD4. PIMA appears to perform better vs. PointCareNOW with venous samples (BA mean bias: -9.5 cells/μL; 95% CrI:-37.71 to 18.27 vs. 139.3 cells/μL; 95% CrI:-0.85 to 267.4, mean difference = 148.8, 95% CrI: 11.8, 285.8); however, PIMA’s best performed when used with capillary samples (BA mean bias: 2.2 cells/μL; 95% CrI:-19.32 to 23.6). Sufficient data was available to allow pooling of sensitivity and specificity data only at the 350 cells/μL cutoff. For PIMA device sensitivity 91.6 (84.7 to 95.5) and specificity was 94.8 (90.1 to 97.3) respectively. There was not sufficient data to allow comparisons between any other devices. Conclusions: PIMA device was comparable to flow cytometry. The estimated differences between the CD4+ cell counts of the device and the reference was small and best estimated in capillary blood specimens. As the evidence stands, the PointCareNOW device will need to improve prior to widespread use and more data on MBio and MiniPOC are needed. Findings inform implementation of PIMA and improvements in other CD4 POC device prior to recommending widespread use.

      Review information

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Review text

      A very well written and comprehensive article. The article is the need of the hour for choosing the optimum POC CD4 device on the best sample for timely staging and treatment initiation of HIV infection. However there are few limitations of the article, which the authors have also mentioned. One, the lack of data about many of the newer POC devices, may lead to bias among readers as to which one to buy. This may further hamper the studies regarding these new devices. Second, the comparison of cost – effectiveness of these devices would be welcome as it is still a matter of concern in developing countries.


      Comment on this review