Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30465319›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2019

Cost Effectiveness of New Diagnostic Tools for Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Afghanistan.

Céline Aerts, Martijn Vink, Sayed Jalal Pashtoon, Sami Nahzat, Albert Picado, Israel Cruz, Elisa Sicuri

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Afghanistan.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Céline AertsISGlobal, Hospital-Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Carrer Rosselló 132, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. celine.aerts@isglobal.org.
Martijn VinkHealth Works (Formerly HealthNet TPO), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sayed Jalal PashtoonHealth Works (Formerly HealthNet TPO), Kabul, Afghanistan.
Sami NahzatNational Malaria and Leishmaniasis Control Program, Ministry of Public Health, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Albert PicadoFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Israel CruzFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Elisa SicuriISGlobal, Hospital-Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Carrer Rosselló 132, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics · CHHealthNet TPO · NLMinistry of Public Health · AF

Funding

The European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 642609The Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany 202060457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesCutaneous leishmaniasis is responsible for chronic and disfiguring skin lesions resulting in morbidity and social stigma. The gold standard to diagnose cutaneous leishmaniasis is microscopy but has a variable sensitivity and requires trained personnel. Using four scenarios, the objective of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of microscopy with two new tools: Loopamp™ Leishmania Detection Kit (LAMP) and CL Detect™ Rapid Test (RDT).

methodsData related to the cost and accuracy of these tools were collected at the clinic of the National Malaria and Leishmaniasis Control Program in Kabul, Afghanistan. The effectiveness estimates were measured based on the tools' performance but also indirectly, using the disability-adjusted life years. A decision tree was designed in TreeAge Healthcare Pro 2016, combined with a Markov model representing the natural history of cutaneous leishmaniasis. In addition to a deterministic analysis, univariate sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

resultsIf the tools are compared at the National Malaria and Leishmaniasis Control Program level in a period of low incidence, microscopy remains the preferred option. LAMP becomes more appropriate during cutaneous leishmaniasis seasons or outbreaks when its capacity to process several tests (e.g. up to 48) at a time can be maximised. RDT has a cost similar to microscopy when used at the reference clinic but as it is relatively easy to use, it could be implemented at the peripheral level, which would become cheaper than employing microscopy at the reference clinic. Moreover, combining RDT with microscopy or LAMP at the reference clinic for the negative suspects is economically more interesting than directly performing LAMP or microscopy respectively on all cutaneous leishmaniasis suspects at the reference clinic.

conclusionsWhen taking advantage of their respective strengths, LAMP and RDT can prove to be cost-effective alternatives to using microscopy alone at the reference clinic.

Indexed as

AfghanistanCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansLeishmaniasis, CutaneousLeishmania tropicaReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID30465319
PMCPMC6439180
OpenAlexW2901960139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.