Skip to main content

Table 2 Hospital antenatal Pima™ field testing using capillary blood

From: Performance evaluation of the Pima™ point-of-care CD4 analyser using capillary blood sampling in field tests in South Africa

Phase II

Laboratory Pima™ vs. Predicate

Clinic Pima™ vs. Predicate

 

Venous EDTA blood

Capillary blood

 

*Pima #1

*Pima #4

*Mean

Pima #1 and #4

Pima #3

Pima #2

All values

N

91

91

91

43

34

77

Range of CD4 counts*

32 - 1186

23 - 1299

28 - 1243

28 - 1092

50 - 1056

28 - 1092

Mean CD4 count*(median)

385.6

(341.0)

399.8

(357.0)

392.7

(347.0)

335.0

(405.0)

350.2

(290.0)

380.8

(329.0)

%Similarity to Predicate

( %SIM Mean ± SD)

96.9%

± 7.89

98.3%

± 7.05

97.6%

± 6.5

98.6%

± 28.45

96.1%

± 16.8

98.7

± 23.02

%SIM CV #

8.1%

7.2%

6.7%

28.8%

17.6%

23.3

BA bias* ± 1 STDev

(PIMA - PLG)

(95% CI of bias mean)

-26.6 ± 73.3

(-41.9 to -11.4)

-12.4 ± 68.1

(-26.6 to 1.8)

-19.6 ± 66.1

(-33.3 to -5.8)

-31.79 ± 213.1

(-97.4 to 33.8)

-45.5 ± 127.7

(-90.1 to -1.0)

-37.9 ± 179.5

(-78.3 to 2.87)

BA 95% LOA*

-170.4 to 117.1

-145.8 to 121.0

-149.1 to 110.0

-147.4 to 385.9

-295.8 to 204.6

-389.1 to 309.8

  1. Statistical analysis of Pima™ analysers field-tested in a hospital-based antenatal HCT clinic (N = 77) and in the laboratory (N = 91) during Phase II testing versus predicate reporting. A direct comparison of Pima performance using matched venous vs. capillary blood samples is shown. All values, with the exception of N, refer to CD4 cell counts in cells/mm3. BA = Bland-Altman statistical analysis. LOA = limits of agreement. #Precision of Pima™ to Predicate method expressed as %SIM CV.
  2. *cells/mm3