ArticleBMC medicine2022
Economic evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen screening programs in the workplace.
Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- The role of economic evaluation in modelling public health and social measures for pandemic policy: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Rapid antigen testing for COVID-19: Decreasing diagnostic reliability, potential detrimental effects and a lack of evidence to support continued public funding of community-based testing.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic testing has been pivotal in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections and reducing transmission through the isolation of positive cases. We quantified the value of implementing frequent, rapid antigen (RA) testing in the workplace to identify screening programs that are cost-effective.
methodsTo project the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths under alternative screening programs, we adapted an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission and parameterized it with the demographics of Ontario, Canada, incorporating vaccination and waning of immunity. Taking into account healthcare costs and productivity losses associated with each program, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the measure of effect. Considering RT-PCR testing of only severe cases as the baseline scenario, we estimated the incremental net monetary benefits (iNMB) of the screening programs with varying durations and initiation times, as well as different booster coverages of working adults.
resultsAssuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CDN$30,000 per QALY loss averted, twice weekly workplace screening was cost-effective only if the program started early during a surge. In most scenarios, the iNMB of RA screening without a confirmatory RT-PCR or RA test was comparable or higher than the iNMB for programs with a confirmatory test for RA-positive cases. When the program started early with a duration of at least 16 weeks and no confirmatory testing, the iNMB exceeded CDN$1.1 million per 100,000 population. Increasing booster coverage of working adults improved the iNMB of RA screening.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that frequent RA testing starting very early in a surge, without a confirmatory test, is a preferred screening program for the detection of asymptomatic infections in workplaces.
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.