ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2012
Cost effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay for school-based tuberculosis screening.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of cost-utility analyses of screening methods in latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk populations.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Screening and Treating Foreign-Born Students for Tuberculosis before Entering the United States.PloS one · 2015Article
- Cost-effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay for entry tuberculosis screening in prisons.Epidemiology and infection · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the cost effectiveness of school-based tuberculosis (TB) screening using QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) versus the tuberculin skin test (TST) and chest x-ray examination (CXR).
methodsWe constructed Markov models of first-year high-school and university students, using a societal perspective, and followed them up until the age of 80 years. Three strategies (QFT, TST, and CXR) were modeled. All costs and clinical benefits were discounted at a fixed annual rate of 3%.
resultsIn the base-case analyses of 16-year-old high-school students and 19-year-old university students, the QFT strategy yielded the greatest benefits at the lowest cost [in year 2009 values] (16-year-olds: $US627.89, 29.69835 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]; 19-year-olds: $US646.04, 29.15361 QALYs), compared with the TST strategy (16-year-olds: $US943.50, 29.69767 QALYs; 19-year-olds: $US998.62, 29.15288 QALYs) and the CXR strategy (16-year-olds: $US7286.24, 29.69532 QALYs; 19-year-olds: $US7305.19, 29.14911 QALYs). On one-way sensitivity analyses, the bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination rate was not sensitive to the TST strategy. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the QFT strategy was the most cost effective, with a willingness-to-pay level of $US50 000/QALY gained.
conclusionThe QFT strategy provided the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for school-based TB screening. There appears to be little role for TST or CXR in screening of school populations. Current practices using either TST or CXR screening should be reconsidered on the basis of cost effectiveness.
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.