ArticleInfection and drug resistance2019
Rapid Diagnosis Of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Impacts Expenditures Prior To Appropriate Treatment: A Performance And Diagnostic Cost Analysis.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of molecular diagnostic tests on diagnostic and treatment delays in tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Analysis of drug resistance and mutation profiles inThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to describe the impact of the Genotype® MTBDRplus line probe assay (LPA) for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) on total costs in a high-burden setting in China. The second objective was to evaluate the performance of HAIN on smear-positive sputum and clinical isolates.
methodsAll definitive TB inpatients at the Shandong Provincial Chest Hospital between May 2012 and May 2017 were included in the study. Two sputum specimens were collected from each patient to conduct smear microscopy, conventional drug susceptibility testing (DST), and the HAIN test. Laboratory and cost data were collected from the electronic medical record system.
resultsA total of 1670 definitive TB patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 1307 (78.3%) had smear-positive/culture-positive tuberculosis, and the remaining 363 (21.7%) had smear-negative/culture-positive tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity of the HAIN test for RIF resistance was 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.9-97.6%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.3-99.4%), respectively. For INH resistance, the sensitivity and specificity was 89.5% (95% CI: 85.7-93.2%) and 95.6% (95% CI: 94.5-96.7%), respectively. The mean time for detection of MDR-TB in smear-negative cases was determined to be 32 days by the HAIN test, which was significantly shorter than that by conventional DST (56 days). Similarly, the mean time for detection of MDR-TB by the HAIN test was significantly shorter than that by conventional DST in smear-positive cases (3 versus 53 days). In addition, by utilizing the HAIN test, the total health care cost decreased by 71.0% for smear-positive cases and 25.9% for smear-negative cases.
conclusionIn conclusion, our data demonstrate that the HAIN test is an accurate rapid test for detecting both RIF and INH resistance in TB patients. The use of the HAIN test can decrease health care costs and reduce the detection time for MDR-TB patients in China, despite the increased costs for laboratory testing.
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.