Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35987335›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2022

Economic evaluation of laboratory diagnostic test types in Covid-19 epidemic: A systematic review.

Zeinab Dolatshahi, Shahin Nargesi, Jamil Sadeghifar, Fateme Mezginejad, Abdosaleh Jafari, Mohammad Bazyar, Sobhan Ghafourian, Nadia Sani'ee

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

8 authors.

Zeinab DolatshahiDepartment of Health Policy, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shahin NargesiDepartment of Health Management and Economics, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran. Electronic address: nargesi.shahin1@gmail.com.
Jamil SadeghifarDepartment of Health Management and Economics, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Fateme MezginejadCellular and Molecular Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran.
Abdosaleh JafariHealth Human Resources Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad BazyarDepartment of Health Management and Economics, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Sobhan GhafourianDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Nadia Sani'eePh.D. in Medical Library and Information Science, Spiritual Health Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorona 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known as the causative agent of COVID-19 disease; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it an epidemic on March 11, 2020. The Joint Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO including social distancing, the use of face masks, emphasis on hand washing, quarantine, and using diagnosis tests have been used widely, but the value of diagnostic interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We compared the economic evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic interventions with each other and also with implementing the conservative CDC & WHO guidelines. MATERIAL AND

methodsElectronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2020 to the end of November 2021.

resultsOut of 1791 initial studies, 13 articles had the inclusion criteria. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, ten studies were of excellent quality, and the remaining two studies were of very good quality. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analysis studies. The entered studies had different time horizons. Diagnostic tests reviewed in the studies included real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) & Antigen, point of care tests. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing improves the quality of life and survival for patients with infected Covid-19 based on its greater effectiveness compared to standard protection protocols, due to the high cost of this intervention, it has been considered a cost-effective method in some countries.

conclusionSince most studies have been conducted in developed countries, it unquestionably does not make sense to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore further studies are required in low-income and developing countries to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laboratory-based diagnostic methods (RT-PCR) of covid-19 in variable prevalence of infectious cases.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansImmunoglobulin GQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2United StatesImmunoglobulin GCost-benefit analysisCost-effectiveness analysisCOVID-19 testingRT-PCR testsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35987335
PMCPMC9384461

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.