ArticleRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2021
Cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: pragmatic study.
Article in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation strategies to increase the uptake and impact of molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic tests: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ global health · 2025Pooled it
- A novel serum-based medium for drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing drug-resistant tuberculosis diagnosis: cost-effectiveness of rapid molecular and phenotypic assays in South Africa.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Based Analysis of Ziehl-Neelsen-Stained Sputum Smears forLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Translating diagnostics and drug delivery technologies to low-resource settings.Science translational medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe intensification of research and innovation with the creation of networks of rapid and effective molecular tests as strategies for the end of tuberculosis are essential to avoid late diagnosis and for the eradication of the disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in reference units, in scenarios with and without subsidies, and the respective cost adjustment for today.
methodsThe analyses were performed considering as criterion of effectiveness, negative culture or clinical improvement in the sixth month of follow-up. The comparison was performed using two diagnostic strategies for the drug susceptibility test (DST), BactecTMMGITTM960 System, versus Xpert. The cost effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and dollar-corrected for American inflation (US$ 1.00 = R$ 5,29).
resultsSubsidized Xpert had the lowest cost of US$ 33.48 (R$67,52) and the highest incremental average efficiency (13.57), thus being a dominated analysis. After the inflation was calculated, the mean cost was DST-MGIT=US$ 74.85 (R$ 396,73) and Xpert = US$ 37.33 (R$197,86) with subsidies.
conclusionsThe Xpert in the diagnosis of TB-DR in these reference units was cost-effective with subsidies. In the absence of a subsidy, Xpert in TB-DR is not characterized as cost effective. This factor reveals the vulnerability of countries dependent on international organizations' subsidy policies.
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.