Skip to main content

Table 2 The prevalence of cryptococcal antigemia and distribution of other clinical features of the study participants, 2007–2018

From: Cryptococcal antigenemia and its predictors among HIV infected patients in resource limited settings: a systematic review

Author (s) Median CD4 count (cells/μl) ART status WHO stage IV (%) Had headache (%) + CrAg test, n (%)
Vidal et al. [28] 25 74% on ART 66 No data 5 (3.1)
Ganiem et al. [29] 20 All naïve no data No data 58 (7.1)
Cheryl et al. [30] 50 All naïve 36.2 No data 22 (5.8)
Beyene et al. [31] -* 47.6% on ATR 36.2 45.7 26 (10.2)
Meya et al. [32] 79 All naïve No data 45.7 50 (8.2)
Rugemalila et al. [33] 96 44% on ART No data 66 7 (3)
Longley et al. [34] 55.5 All naïve No data No data 28 (4.3)
Hailu et al. [35] -** 52% on ART 45 33 9 (3.4)
Letang et al. [36] 71 All naïve No data No data 28 (3.7)
Christopher et al. [37] -*** All on ART No data No data 33 (9.9)
Williams et al. [38] 25 51% on ART No data No data 149 (72)^
Alemu et al. [39] 123 74% on ART 100 28 31 (8.4)
Derbie et al. [40] 51.8 All on ART No data No data 16 (11.7)
Mamuye et al. [41] 93 51% on ART 36% 39 18 (9.1)
Oyella et al. [42] 23 All naïve No data 37.1 69 (19)
Ogouyemi et al. [18] -** All naïve No data No data 6 (1.7)
Drain et al. [43] 75 All naïve No data No data 39 (9)
Mdodo et al. [44] 72 30.6% on ART No data 80.6 111 (33)
Micol et al. [45] 24 All naïve 28% 52.5 59 (18)
Jarvis et al. [46] 97 All naïve No data No data 46 (7)
Wajanga et al. [47] 68 All naïve 17.9% No data 17 (5.1)
Magambo et al. [48] 97 All naïve 66 10 10 (7.1)
  1. Four studies didn’t report the exact median CD4 count of their study participants. However, *about 59 (23.2%) of this particular study participants had CD4 < 100; **All the study participants of this study had CD4 count < 100; *** About 121(36.3%) of this study participants had CD4 < 200
  2. ^Outlier: subjects were HIV patients suspected for meningitis who were admitted to a hospital. The figure is excluded from the pooled prevalence analysis