ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness screening of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the municipality of Andratx (Balearic Islands, Spain).Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- The Role and Value of Professional Rapid Testing of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) in Europe: A Special Focus on the Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratio and economic impact of the Rapid Antigen Test (TR-Ag) to replace RT-PCR for the detection of the new Coronavirus in the Unified Health System (SUS).
methodsThis is a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clinical protocols were used for the diagnosis of COVID-19 at the São José Municipal Hospital, located in the city of Itaberá-SP. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was divided into two scenarios. In the first, the accuracy reported by the test manufacturers was included, and in the second, the cost resulting from a systematic review. Both were compared with the performance of the RT-PCR test. The increase in diagnoses was chosen as a health outcome and absenteeism was used as a criterion for assessing the economic impact.
resultsThe analysis resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of R$ 42,136.67 and R$ 68,329.73 for every thousand tests, according to the accuracy of the manufacturers' TR-Ag tests and what is reported in the literature in relation to RT-PCR, respectively. The average value found for the RT-PCR test (R$ 202.87) represents an increase of 165.32% in cost in relation to the value found for the TR-Ag. 4,305 tests were performed between April 2020 and December 2021 at the referral hospital. Also, maintaining the use of RT-PCR as the first choice for diagnosing COVID-19 and regulating absenteeism in the economically active population could have an impact of up to R$ 1,022,779.68 on municipal management.
conclusionIt is concluded that the TR-Ag are configured as a cost-effective alternative for the SUS in the detection of the new Coronavirus. The strategy becomes economically favorable for the expansion of testing, combating the COVID-19 pandemic and reducing the impact on the local economy. However, studies are needed to validate the accuracy of the tests so that economic evaluations on the subject are more assertive.
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.