Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28187989›Full record

ReviewTrends in parasitology2017

Economic Considerations for Moving beyond the Kato-Katz Technique for Diagnosing Intestinal Parasites As We Move Towards Elimination.

Hugo C Turner, Alison A Bettis, Julia C Dunn, Jane M Whitton, T Déirdre Hollingsworth, Fiona M Fleming, Roy M Anderson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in parasitology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Economic Evaluations of Mass Drug Administration: The Importance of Economies of Scale and Scope.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hugo C TurnerLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London,Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK; Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: hturner@oucru.org.
Alison A BettisLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London,Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
Julia C DunnLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London,Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
Jane M WhittonSchistosomiasis Control Initiative, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine (St Mary's Campus), Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
T Déirdre HollingsworthMathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK; School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Fiona M FlemingSchistosomiasis Control Initiative, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine (St Mary's Campus), Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
Roy M AndersonLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London,Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the need for more sensitive diagnostics for intestinal helminths is well known, the cost of developing and implementing new tests is considered relatively high compared to the Kato-Katz technique. Here, we review the reported costs of performing the Kato-Katz technique. We also outline several economic arguments we believe highlight the need for further investment in alternative diagnostics, and considerations that should be made when comparing their costs. In our opinion, we highlight that, without new diagnostic methods, it will be difficult for policy makers to make the most cost-effective decisions and that the potentially higher unit costs of new methods can be outweighed by the long-term programmatic benefits they have (such as the ability to detect the interruption of transmission).

Indexed as

AnimalsCost-Benefit AnalysisDiagnostic Techniques and ProceduresDisease EradicationHelminthiasisHumansIntestinal Diseases, Parasitic

Identifiers

PMID28187989
PMCPMC5446322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.