ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Recombinant mycobacterium tuberculosis fusion protein for diagnosis of mycobacterium tuberculosis infection: a short-term economic evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: RecombinantFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of diagnostic tests for tuberculosis: a narrative review.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Feature fusion method for pulmonary tuberculosis patient detection based on cough sound.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Recombinant Mycobacterium tuberculosis fusion protein (EC) was anticipated to be used for the scale-up of clinical application for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in China, but it lacked a head-to-head economic evaluation based on the Chinese population. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility and the cost-effectiveness of both EC and tuberculin pure protein derivative (TB-PPD) for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in the short term. Methods: From a Chinese societal perspective, both cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were performed to evaluate the economics of EC and TB-PPD for a one-year period based on clinical trials and decision tree model, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the utility-measured primary outcome and diagnostic performance (including the misdiagnosis rate, the omission diagnostic rate, the number of patients correctly classified, and the number of tuberculosis cases avoided) as the effective-measured secondary outcome. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the base-case analysis, and a scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate the difference in the charging method between EC and TB-PPD. Results: The base-case analysis showed that, compared with TB-PPD, EC was the dominant strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of saving 192,043.60 CNY per QALY gained, and with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of saving 7,263.53 CNY per misdiagnosis rate reduction. In addition, there was no statistical difference in terms of the omission diagnostic rate, the number of patients correctly classified, and the number of tuberculosis cases avoided, and EC was a similar cost-saving strategy with a lower test cost (98.00 CNY) than that of TB-PPD (136.78 CNY). The sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis, and the scenario analysis indicated cost-utility in EC and cost-effectiveness in TB-PPD. Conclusion: This economic evaluation from a societal perspective showed that, compared to TB-PPD, EC was likely to be a cost-utility and cost-effective intervention in the short term in China.
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.