Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022776›Full record

ArticleIJTLD open2024

Xpert MTB/XDR implementation in South Africa: cost outcomes of centralised vs. decentralised approaches.

N Cassim, S V Omar, S D Masuku, H Moultrie, W S Stevens, F Ismail, P da Silva

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in IJTLD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

N CassimNational Priority Programme, National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.
S V OmarCentre for Tuberculosis, National TB Reference Laboratory, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.
S D MasukuHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
H MoultrieCentre for Tuberculosis, National TB Reference Laboratory, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.
W S StevensNational Priority Programme, National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.
F IsmailCentre for Tuberculosis, National TB Reference Laboratory, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.
P da SilvaNational Priority Programme, National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn South Africa, Xpert

methodsThe total cost of gDST was determined for three strategies, considering loss to follow-up (LTFU), unsuccessful test rates, and specimen volume.

resultsFor 2019, 9,415 persons were diagnosed with RR-TB. A 35% LTFU rate between RR-TB diagnosis and LPAfl/LPAsl-DST was estimated. Unsuccessful test rates of 37% and 23.3% were reported for LPAfl and LPAsl, respectively. The estimated total costs were $191,472 for the conventional strategy, $122,352 for the centralised strategy, and $126,838 for the decentralised strategy. However, it was found that sufficient residual volume for reflex MTB/XDR testing is a limiting factor at the decentralised level.

conclusionCentralising the implementation of XDR testing, as compared to LPAfl/LPAsl, leads to significant cost savings.

Indexed as

drug susceptibility testingline-probe assaymultidrug-resistant tuberculosisrifampicin-resistant tuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID39022776
PMCPMC11249600

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.