Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33764295›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

Matt Stevenson, Andrew Metry, Michael Messenger

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  7. COVID-19 Health Economics: Looking Back and Scoping the Future.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Article
  8. COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matt StevensonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-9877
Andrew MetrySchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7412-6093
Michael MessengerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4975-0158
University of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. At the time of writing (October 2020), the number of cases of COVID-19 had been approaching 38 million and more than 1 million deaths were attributable to it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in hospital wards.

objectiveThe work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests. A further objective was to assess occupancy levels in hospital areas, such as waiting bays, before allocation to an appropriate bay. PERSPECTIVE/

settingThe perspective was that of the UK NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical hospital with an accident and emergency department.

methodsAn individual patient model was constructed that simulated the spread of disease and mortality within the hospital and recorded occupancy levels. Thirty-two strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests were modelled. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits, and key patient outcomes, such as death and intensive care unit care, caused directly by COVID-19 were recorded.

resultsA SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile appears to have a relatively small number of infections, a low occupancy level within the waiting bays, and a high net monetary benefit. However, if hospital laboratory testing can produce results in 6 hours, then the benefits of point-of-care tests may be reduced. The acceptable target product profiles performed less well and had lower net monetary benefits than both a laboratory-based test with a 24-hour turnaround time and strategies using data from currently available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. The desirable and acceptable point-of-care test target product profiles had lower requirement for patients to be in waiting bays before being allocated to an appropriate bay than laboratory-based tests, which may be of high importance in some hospitals. Tests that appeared more cost-effective also had better patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. The example hospital simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain.

conclusionsShould a SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile become available, this appears promising, particularly when the reduction on the requirements for waiting bays before allocation to a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, or a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, is considered. The results produced should be informative to decision-makers who can identify the results most pertinent to their specific circumstances. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results could be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of, and the reduction in time to test result associated with, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, and on the impact of these tests on occupancy of waiting bays and isolation bays. These parameters are currently uncertain.

fundingThis report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Patient AdmissionCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19Emergency Service, HospitalFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHumansPoint-of-Care TestingSARS-CoV-2State MedicineUnited KingdomCOST–BENEFIT ANALYSISCOST-EFFECTIVENESSCOVID-19DIAGNOSTIC TESTSPOINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMSSEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME CORONAVIRUS 2

Identifiers

PMID33764295
PMCPMC8020197
OpenAlexW3136680728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.