Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29244829›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of introducing malaria diagnostic testing in drug shops: A cluster-randomised trial in Uganda.

Kristian Schultz Hansen, Siân E Clarke, Sham Lal, Pascal Magnussen, Anthony K Mbonye

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Malaria Control Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kristian Schultz HansenDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Siân E ClarkeDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sham LalDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Pascal MagnussenCentre for Medical Parasitology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anthony K MbonyeDirectorate of Clinical and Community Services, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DKMinistry of Health · UG

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N003810/1Wellcome Trust 084933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrivate sector drug shops are an important source of malaria treatment in Africa, yet diagnosis without parasitological testing is common among these providers. Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (mRDTs) require limited training and present an opportunity to increase access to correct diagnosis. The present study was a cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of mRDTs in Ugandan drug shops.

methodsDrug shop vendors were trained to perform and sell subsidised mRDTs and artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) in the intervention arm while vendors offered ACTs following presumptive diagnosis of malaria in the control arm. The effect on the proportion of customers with fever 'appropriately treated of malaria with ACT' was captured during a randomised trial in drug shops in Mukono District, Uganda. Health sector costs included: training of drug shop vendors, community sensitisation, supervision and provision of mRDTs and ACTs to drug shops. Household costs of treatment-seeking were captured in a representative sample of drug shop customers.

findingsThe introduction of mRDTs in drug shops was associated with a large improvement of diagnosis and treatment of malaria, resulting in low incremental costs for the health sector at US$0.55 per patient appropriately treated of malaria. High expenditure on non-ACT drugs by households contributed to higher incremental societal costs of US$3.83. Sensitivity analysis showed that mRDTs would become less cost-effective compared to presumptive diagnosis with increasing malaria prevalence and lower adherence to negative mRDT results.

conclusionmRDTs in drug shops improved the targeting of ACTs to malaria patients and are likely to be considered cost-effective compared to presumptive diagnosis, although the increased costs borne by households when the test result is negative are a concern.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsArtemisininsCommerceCost-Benefit AnalysisDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFeverHumansMalariaPrivate SectorUgandaAntimalarialsartemisininArtemisinins

Identifiers

PMID29244829
PMCPMC5731679
OpenAlexW2775228470

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.