ArticleBMC health services research2023
Economic analysis of a new four-panel rapid screening test in antenatal care in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The feasibility and impact of deploying a four-tests panel at antenatal care in primary health care facilities of a developing country, Kenya.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed an economic analysis of a new technology used in antenatal care (ANC) clinics, the ANC panel. Introduced in 2019-2020 in five Rwandan districts, the ANC panel screens for four infections [hepatitis B virus (HBV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), malaria, and syphilis] using blood from a single fingerstick. It increases the scope and sensitivity of screening over conventional testing.
methodsWe developed and applied an Excel-based economic and epidemiologic model to perform cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of this technology in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. Costs include the ANC panel itself, its administration, and follow-up treatment. Effectiveness models predicted impacts on maternal and infant mortality and other outcomes. Key parameters are the baseline prevalence of each infection and the effectiveness of early treatment using observations from the Rwanda pilot, national and international literature, and expert opinion. For each parameter, we found the best estimate (with 95% confidence bound).
resultsThe ANC panel averted 92 (69-115) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1,000 pregnant women in ANC in Kenya, 54 (52-57) in Rwanda, and 258 (156-360) in Uganda. Net healthcare costs per woman ranged from $0.53 ($0.02-$4.21) in Kenya, $1.77 ($1.23-$5.60) in Rwanda, and negative $5.01 (-$6.45 to $0.48) in Uganda. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per DALY averted were $5.76 (-$3.50-$11.13) in Kenya, $32.62 ($17.54-$46.70) in Rwanda, and negative $19.40 (-$24.18 to -$15.42) in Uganda. Benefit-cost ratios were $17.48 ($15.90-$23.71) in Kenya, $6.20 ($5.91-$6.45) in Rwanda, and $25.36 ($16.88-$33.14) in Uganda. All results appear very favorable and cost-saving in Uganda.
conclusionThough subject to uncertainty, even our lowest estimates were still favorable. By combining field data and literature, the ANC model could be applied to other countries.
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.