Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36650143›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2023

Cost-of-illness comparison between clinical judgment and molecular point-of-care testing for influenza-like illness patients in Germany.

M Brachmann, P Serwa, D Sauerland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M BrachmannWitten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
P Serwabcmed GmbH, Ulm, Germany.
D SauerlandWitten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. Dirk.Sauerland@uni-wh.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7651-2799
Witten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A high economic burden stems from seasonal influenza as a well-known but serious public health problem. Rapid diagnostic tests have not yet been integrated into routine use in German primary care, even though they are likely to reduce overall costs in cases of suspected infection. This study aims to demonstrate that the use of point-of-care testing (POCT) produces lower costs of illness compared to the costs incurred by relying on clinical judgment alone. With the help of a decision tree model, two different diagnostic approaches for influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care were compared: (1) clinical judgment with no technical support and (2) POCT. The costs of illness, as well as their differences, vary widely among the three age groups considered (elderly people, adults, and children). For the pathway of using clinical judgment alone, the costs of illness sum up to 155.99 € for elderly people compared to 76.31 € for adults and 74.15 € for children. With POCT, the costs of illness for the elderly amount to 115,09 €, which is 26% lower than the costs without diagnostic support. The costs for adults and children are 74.42 € and 75.66 €, respectively, which means 2.5% lower costs of illness for adults and 2% higher costs for children. The results demonstrate that the use of POCT to support detecting influenza in ILI patients may reduce the overall cost of illness. The provided data can help governments make informed decisions about potential cost savings by integrating POCT into the reimbursement scheme.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanAdultAgedChildGermanyHumansJudgmentPoint-of-Care Testing

Identifiers

PMID36650143
PMCPMC9844933
OpenAlexW4316878003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.