These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of two alternative methods for CD4+ T-cell determination (Coulter manual CD4 count and CyFlow) against standard dual platform flow cytometry in Uganda.
    Author: Karcher H, Böhning D, Downing R, Mashate S, Harms G.
    Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom; 2006 May; 70(3):163-9. PubMed ID: 16498672.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: In this study we evaluated alternative CD4(+) T-cell counting methods in clients of a PMTCT Programme in rural Uganda. METHODS: The Coulter Manual CD4 Count method for CD4(+) T-cell enumeration (Cyto-Spheres) and an automated method (volumetric, single-platform flow cytometry; CyFlow) were compared with a standard, dual-platform flow cytometry protocol (DPFC, FACScan). RESULTS: Correlation and precision of agreement were higher for the CyFlow method (r = 0.929 and eta = 0.08) when compared to DPFC than for the Cyto-Spheres method (r = 0.725 and eta = 0.3). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that CD4(+) cell counts by the CyFlow method were a stronger predictor for results of DPFC than those of the Cyto-Spheres method (r(2) = 0.864 and r(2) = 0.552, respectively). When compared to DPFC the CyFlow method generated higher CD4(+) cell counts than the Cyto-Spheres method, as expressed by a higher median and mean difference (+70 and +90 cells for CyFlow, +28 and -1.4 cells for Cyto-Spheres). CONCLUSION: Both, the manual Cyto-Spheres method and the CyFlow method can be used for the enumeration of CD4(+) cells in resource-limited settings. Under supervised conditions, the CyFlow method produced results more consistent with the reference method than the Cyto-Spheres method.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]