ArticleBMJ global health2016
Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults.
Article in BMJ global health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Xpert MTB Host Response assay for the triage of patients with presumed pulmonary tuberculosis: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in Viet Nam, India, the Philippines, Uganda, and South Africa.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Trial
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Tuberculosis Screening Tests in a Prospective Multinational Cohort: Chest Radiography With Computer-Aided Detection, Xpert Tuberculosis Host Response, and C-Reactive Protein.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Integrated treatment-decision algorithms for childhood TB: modelling diagnostic performance and costs.IJTLD open · 2026Article
- Comparative cost analysis of community-based tuberculosis screening: Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) alone versus CAD with point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in South Africa and Lesotho.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Neutrophil proteins as potential biomarkers for a sputum-based tuberculosis screening test.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of TB screening tests: Chest-X-ray, Xpert TB host response, and C-reactive protein.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- HIV Rapid Testing in the General Population and the Usefulness of PrEP in Ecuador: A Cost-Utility Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Adherence to Monitoring Guidelines of Amiodarone Adverse Reactions.Health services research and managerial epidemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied.
methodsWe constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon.
resultsSystematic screening in a population with a 5% underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95% uncertainty range US$200-US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening.
conclusionsTo optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.
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.