Trial reportPloS one2017
Cost-effectiveness analysis of introducing malaria diagnostic testing in drug shops: A cluster-randomised trial in Uganda.
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.
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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic tests: a systematic review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2019Pooled it
- Who pays to treat malaria and how much? Analysis of the cost of illness, equity and economic burden of malaria in Uganda.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- Point-of-care testing in private pharmacy and drug retail settings: a narrative review.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Achieving malaria testing and treatment targets for children under five in Mozambique: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing subsidised malaria rapid diagnostic tests in the private retail sector in sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Poor-quality antimalarials further health inequities in Uganda.Health policy and planning · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
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.