ArticleSouthern African journal of HIV medicine2016
Compliance to HIV treatment monitoring guidelines can reduce laboratory costs.
Article in Southern African journal of HIV medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost of running a full-service receiving office at a centralised testing laboratory in South Africa.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPanel tests are a predetermined group of tests commonly requested together to provide a comprehensive and conclusive diagnosis, for example, liver function test (LFT). South African HIV antiretroviral treatment (ART) guidelines recommend individual tests for toxicity monitoring over panel tests. In 2008, the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) request form was redesigned to list individual tests instead of panel tests and removed the 'other tests' box option to facilitate efficient ART laboratory monitoring.
objectivesThis study aimed to demonstrate changes in laboratory expenditure, for individual and panel tests, for ART toxicity monitoring.
methodNHLS Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) data were extracted for HIV conditional grant accounts to assess ART toxicity monitoring laboratory expenditure between 2010/2011 and 2014/2015. Data were classified based on the tests requested, as either panel (LFT or urea and electrolytes) or individual (alanine transaminase or creatinine) tests.
resultsExpenditure on panel tests reduced from R340 million in 2010/2011 to R140m by 2014/2015 (reduction of R204m) and individual test expenditure increased from R34m to R76m (twofold increase). A significant reduction in LFT panel expenditure was noted, reducing from R322m in 2010/2011 to R130m in 2014/2015 (60% reduction).
conclusionChanges in toxicity monitoring guidelines and the re-engineering of the NHLS request form successfully reduced expenditure on panel tests relative to individual tests. The introduction of order entry systems could further reduce unnecessary laboratory expenditure.
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.