Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34496804›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2021

Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review.

H Alsdurf, B Empringham, C Miller, A Zwerling

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cost-effectiveness of active tuberculosis screening among high-risk populations in low tuberculosis incidence countries: a systematic review, 2008 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Number needed to screen for TB in clinical, structural or occupational risk groups.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Cost-effectiveness of community tuberculosis screening in South Africa.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

H AlsdurfSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Cresent, Ottawa, Canada.
B EmpringhamSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Cresent, Ottawa, Canada.
C MillerGlobal TB Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
A ZwerlingSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Cresent, Ottawa, Canada. azwerlin@uottawa.ca.

Funding

CIHR 168859World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively.

resultsA total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective.

conclusionsStudies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the "missing millions" TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningTuberculosisCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationSystematic reviewTuberculosisTuberculosis controlTuberculosis in HIV-infected

Identifiers

PMID34496804
PMCPMC8425319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.