ArticlePloS one2021
Novel health system strategies for tuberculin skin testing at primary care clinics: Performance assessment and health economic evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculin skin test (TST) for guiding initiation of tuberculosis preventive therapy poses major challenges in high tuberculosis burden settings.
methodsAt a primary care clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa, 278 HIV-positive adults self-read their TST by reporting if they felt a bump (any induration) at the TST placement site. TST reading (in mm) was fast-tracked to reduce patient wait time and task-shifted to delegate tasks to lower cadre healthcare workers, and result was compared to TST reading by high cadre research staff. TST reading and placement cost to the health system and patients were estimated. Simulations of health system costs were performed for 5 countries (USA, Germany, Brazil, India, Russia) to evaluate generalizability.
resultsAlmost all participants (269 of 278, 97%) correctly self-identified the presence or absence of any induration [sensitivity 89% (95% CI 80,95) and specificity 99.5% (95% CI 97,100)]. For detection of a positive TST (induration ≥ 5mm), sensitivity was 90% (95% CI 81,96) and specificity 99% (95% CI 97,100). TST reading agreement between low and high cadre staff was high (kappa 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 1.00). Total TST cost was 2066 I$ (95% UI 594, 5243) per 100 patients, 87% (95% UI 53, 95) of which were patient costs. Combining fast-track and task-shifting, reduced total costs to 1736 I$ (95% UI 497, 4300) per 100 patients, with 31% (95% UI 15, 42) saving in health system costs. Combining fast-tracking, task-shifting and self-reading, lowered the TST health system costs from 16% (95% UI 8, 26) in Russia to 40% (95% UI 18, 54) in the USA.
conclusionA TST strategy where only patients with any self-read induration are asked to return for fast-tracked TST reading by lower cadre healthcare workers is a promising strategy that could be effective and cost-saving, but real-life cost-effectiveness should be further examined.
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.