ArticlePloS one2022
Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extraoral Detection of Biomarkers and Pathogens in Saliva: Comprehensive, Panoramic Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Improving Clinical Diagnostics and Patient Care through Artificial Intelligence and Biosensor Technologies.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Occlusion body-incorporated SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD via cypovirus polyhedrin-derived peptide: a novel insect cell-expressed antigen for high-accuracy COVID-19 diagnosis, and humoral immune response and hybrid immunity evaluation.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study of the Use of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Community Identification of SARS-CoV-2 in Kenya.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- A modular cell-free protein biosensor platform using split T7 RNA polymerase.Science advances · 2025Article
- Lateral flow assay: a promising rapid point-of-care testing tool for infections and non-communicable diseases.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 in Iran.BMC health services research · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough serologic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis are rarely indicated nowadays, they remain commercially available and widely used in Brazil. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2antibody diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in Brazil.
methodsEleven commercially available diagnostic tests, comprising five lateral-flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) and six immunoenzymatic assays (ELISA) were analyzed from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System.
resultsThe direct costs of LFAs ranged from US$ 11.42 to US$ 17.41and of ELISAs, from US$ 6.59 to US$ 10.31. Considering an estimated disease prevalence between 5% and 10%, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) was the most cost-effective test, followed by the rapid One Step COVID-19 Test, at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$ 2.52 and US$ 1.26 per properly diagnosed case, respectively. Considering only the LFAs, at the same prevalence estimates, two tests, the COVID-19 IgG/IgM and the One Step COVID-19 Test, showed high effectiveness at similar costs. For situations where the estimated probability of disease is 50%, the LFAs are more costly and less effective alternatives.
conclusionsNowadays there are few indications for the use of serologic tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and numerous commercially available tests, with marked differences are observed among them. In general, LFA tests are more cost-effective for estimated low-COVID-19-prevalences, while ELISAs are more cost-effective for high-pretest-probability scenarios.
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.