ArticleBMJ open2022
Cost-effectiveness of GeneXpert Omni compared with GeneXpert MTB/Rif for point-of-care diagnosis of tuberculosis in a low-resource, high-burden setting in Eastern Uganda: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytical modelling.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tuberculosis diagnosis versus GeneXpertBioanalysis · 2024Article
- A novel tailed primer nucleic acid test for detection of HPV 16, 18 and 45 DNA at the point of care.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Rapid Point-of-Care PCR Testing of Drug-Resistant Strains on Endotracheal Aspirate Samples: A Repurposed Effective Tool in the Stepwise Approach of Healthcare-Acquired Pneumonia-A Pilot Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of Xpert Omni compared with Xpert MTB/Rif for point-of-care diagnosis of tuberculosis among presumptive cases in a low-resource, high burden facility.
designCost-effectiveness analysis from the provider's perspective.
settingA low-resource, high tuberculosis burden district in Eastern Uganda.
participantsA provider's perspective was used, and thus, data were collected from experts in the field of tuberculosis diagnosis purposively selected at the local, subnational and national levels.
methodsA decision analysis model was contracted from TreeAge comparing Xpert MTB/Rif and Xpert Omni. Cost estimation was done using the ingredients' approach. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential model parameters. OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was incremental cost per additional test diagnosed expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
resultsThe total cost per test for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$14.933. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to 67% of Xpert MTB/Rif costs. Sample transport costs increased the cost per test of Xpert MTB/Rif by $1.28. The total cost per test for Xpert Omni was $16.153. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to over 71.2% of Xpert Omni's cost per test. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for using Xpert Omni as a replacement for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$30.73 per additional case detected. There was no dominance noted in the cost-effectiveness analysis, meaning no strategy was dominant over the other.
conclusionThe use of Xpert Omni at the point-of-care health facility was more effective but with an increased cost compared with Xpert MTB/Rif at the centralised referral testing facility.
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.