ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2003
Management of influenza symptoms in healthy adults.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid tests to inform triage and antibiotic prescribing decisions for adults presenting with suspected acute respiratory infection: a rapid evidence synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-utility studies.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Economic Analyses of Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of seasonal influenza vaccination for the elderly population in the European Union.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) for Children for the Prevention of Influenza Illness in Sweden: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiviral treatment in the management of seasonal influenza A: point-of-care rapid test versus clinical judgment.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2016Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Turkey.PloS one · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a new, rapid, simple test for the detection of influenza virus.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus trivalent influenza vaccine for elderly in Hong Kong.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Cost-utility of rapid polymerase chain reaction-based influenza testing for high-risk emergency department patients.Annals of emergency medicine · 2013Article
- Public health and economic benefits of new pediatric influenza vaccination programs in Argentina.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2012Article
- Implementing an influenza vaccination programme for adults aged ≥65 years in Poland: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Clinical drug investigation · 2012Article
- To test or to treat? An analysis of influenza testing and antiviral treatment strategies using economic computer modeling.PloS one · 2010Article
- Article
- Antiviral and antibiotic prescribing for influenza in primary care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2009Article
- Do pediatricians manage influenza differently than internists?BMC pediatrics · 2008Article
- The impact of influenza on working days lost: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Review
- Communicable respiratory threats in the ED: tuberculosis, influenza, SARS, and other aerosolized infections.Emergency medicine clinics of North America · 2006Review
- Rapid Tests for Influenza.Current infectious disease reports · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostic testing and empiric antiviral therapy for healthy adults with symptoms of influenza.
designCost-effectiveness analysis using a decision model based on previously published data. Outcome measures included costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy.
settingPhysician's office. PATIENTS/
participantsHypothetically healthy, working adults < 65 years of age presenting with cough and fever during the influenza season.
interventionsRapid testing or clinical diagnosis followed by treatment with amantadine, rimantadine, oseltamivir, or zanamivir compared with no antiviral therapy.
resultsBase-case analysis: not giving antiviral therapy is the most expensive and least effective strategy, costing 471 dollars per patient, mostly owing to time lost from work. Amantadine treatment increases life expectancy by 0.0014 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while saving 108 dollars per patient relative to no antiviral therapy. Zanamivir is slightly more effective than amantadine, adding 0.0002 QALYs at an incremental cost of 31 dollars, or 133,000 dollars per QALY saved. All other strategies, including testing strategies, are both less effective and more expensive. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The model is sensitive to the probability of influenza infection, proportion of influenza caused by type B, the relative efficacy of the various drugs, and the value of a workday. At a clinical probability of influenza infection > 20%, antiviral therapy is favored. As the proportion of influenza B increases, zanamivir is favored over amantadine. Testing is rarely indicated. Ignoring the costs of lost workdays, amantadine treatment costs 1,200 dollars/QALY saved.
conclusionsAntiviral therapy with either amantadine or zanamivir is cost-effective for healthy, young patients with influenza-like illness during the influenza season, depending on the prevalence of influenza B.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.