SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2024
Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care diagnostics for AMR: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care C-reactive protein devices for acute respiratory tract infections.Infection · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of methodological approaches in economic evaluations of maternal and neonatal sepsis interventions in low- and middle-income countries.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of the Prioritization of Diagnostics in National Action Plans for Antimicrobial Resistance.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of a molecular-based point-of-care test for rapid detection of respiratory syncytial virus in children admitted to high-dependency care in Nepal.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic tests for urinary tract infections and antimicrobial resistance-a reality check between diagnostic innovation and implementation: a critical narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Proteome-wide remodelling in Klebsiella pneumoniae during step-wise adaptive evolution against colistin.PloS one · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of point-of-care tests for causes of non-malarial febrile illnesses in low-resource settings: a case study from Lao PDR.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Advances in Point-of-Care Infectious Disease Diagnostics: Integration of Technologies, Validation, Artificial Intelligence, and Regulatory Oversight.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patients' perspectives on antimicrobial resistance in chronic respiratory disease: an AMR-Lung/European Lung Foundation global patient survey.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Risk factors for poor prognosis in adult outpatient urinary tract infection: a meta-analysis.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Machine learning in point-of-care testing: innovations, challenges, and opportunities.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Not forgetting the humanitarian contexts in the fight against antimicrobial resistance: Operational-driven reflection on knowledge and research gaps by Médecins Sans Frontières.PLOS global public health · 2025Review
- High prevalence of plasmid-mediated Fosfomycin resistance in waterfowl-derivedFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Multicentre external validation of the Neonatal Healthcare-associated infectiOn Prediction (NeoHoP) score: a retrospective case-control study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Observational
- Healthcare as a driver, reservoir and amplifier of antimicrobial resistance: opportunities for interventions.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to global health. By 2050, it is forecast that AMR will cause 10 million deaths and cost 100 trillion USD annually. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) may represent a cost-effective approach to reduce AMR.
objectivesWe systematically reviewed which POCTs addressing AMR have undergone economic evaluation in primary and secondary healthcare globally, how these POCTs have been economically evaluated, and which are cost-effective in reducing antimicrobial prescribing or the burden of AMR. Clinical cost-effectiveness was additionally addressed.
methodsThis systematic review, accordant with PRISMA guidelines, was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022315192). MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 2000 to 2023 for relevant publications. Quality assessment was performed using the Consensus of Health Economic Criteria.
resultsThe search strategy identified 1421 studies, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. The most common POCTs assessed were for respiratory infections (n = 10), STIs (n = 3), and febrile patients in low- and middle-income countries (n = 3). All studies assessed costs from a healthcare provider perspective; five additionally considered the societal cost of AMR.Eighteen studies identified POCT strategies that reduced antimicrobial prescribing. Of these, 10 identified POCTs that would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £33.80 per antibiotic prescription avoided. Most POCT strategies improved clinical outcomes (n = 14); the remainder were clinically neutral.
conclusionsThere is evidence that some POCTs are cost-effective in reducing antimicrobial prescribing, with potential concomitant clinical benefits. Such interventions-especially CRP POCTs in both high- and low-income settings-merit further, large-scale clinical evaluation.
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.