SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2022
A systematic review of cost-utility analyses of screening methods in latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk populations.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interferon-Gamma Release Assay Testing for Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Pooled it
- TB-SERS analyzer: Analysis tool for tuberculosis prediction based on Raman spectroscopy with machine learning and convolutional neural network.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Screening and treatment practices for tuberculosis infection in Nordic, Baltic and Central European countries and Ukraine in 2023.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Projected Effects of Changing Global Tuberculosis Epidemiology on Mycobacterium tuberculosis Immunoreactivity Prevalence, 2024-2050.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Optimizing tuberculosis infection screening strategies for people living with HIV in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Advancement in diagnostic approaches for latent tuberculosis: distinguishing recent from remote infections.One health outlook · 2025Review
- Tuberculosis Preventive Treatment in High TB-Burden Settings: A State-of-the-Art Review.Drugs · 2025Review
- Screening of household contacts for TB infection in Cote d'Ivoire.IJTLD open · 2024Article
- Prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in healthcare workers in Latin America and the Caribbean: systematic review and meta-analysis.Le infezioni in medicina · 2024Review
- Tuberculosis in Spain: An opinion paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Review
- A costing framework to compare tuberculosis infection tests.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Screening for Tuberculosis Infection among Migrants: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Italian Context.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Global Expansion of LTBI Screening and Treatment Programs: Exploring Gaps in the Supporting Economic Evidence.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that testing and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) should be undertaken in high-risk groups using either interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) or a tuberculin skin test (TST). As IGRAs are more expensive than TST, an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs can guide decision makers on the most appropriate choice of test for different high-risk populations. This current review aimed to provide the most up to date evidence on the cost-effectiveness evidence on LTBI testing in high-risk groups-specifically evidence reporting the costs per QALY of different testing strategies.
methodsA comprehensive search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS-EED was undertaken from 2011 up to March 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The study quality was assessed using the Bias in Economic Evaluation Checklist (ECOBIAS). A narrative synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.
resultsThirty-two studies reported in thirty-three documents were included in this review. Quality of included studies was generally high, although there was a weakness across all studies referencing sources correctly and/or justifying choices of parameter values chosen or assumptions where parameter values were not available. Inclusions of IGRAs in testing strategies was consistently found across studies to be cost-effective but this result was sensitive to underlying LTBI prevalence rates.
conclusionWhile some concerns remain about uncertainty in parameter values used across included studies, the evidence base since 2010 has grown with modelling approaches addressing the weakness pointed out in previous reviews but still reaching the same conclusion that IGRAs are likely to be cost-effective in high-income countries for high-risk populations. Evidence is also required on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies in low to middle income countries and countries with high TB burden.
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.