ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Cost-effectiveness of sentinel screening of endemic diseases alongside malaria diagnosis: A case study in schistosomiasis.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. 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.
- Peptide-Enabled Nanoplatforms for Malaria and Leishmaniasis: From Intracellular Targeting to Translational Diagnostic Perspectives.ChemMedChem · 2026Review
- Economic Evaluation of Multi-Objective Schistosomiasis Control Through Systemic Causality: Theoretical Advances and Governance Implications.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Review
- Microbiome-mediated crosstalk between T2DM and MASLD: a translational review focused on function.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn countries where malaria is endemic, the use of rapid diagnostic tests(RDTs) has become routine, especially in rural settings. Such regions are characterised by often having other co-endemic infectious diseases, at high levels of prevalence.
aimTo illustrate the potential added-value of "sentinel" screening for patients presenting for a routine diagnostic test for malaria, at healthcare facilities in Uganda.
methodsWe developed an economic model by combining two decision trees, one for malaria and a second for the co-endemic disease schistosomiasis. The integrated model was designed to inform policy strategies for the co-endemic disease in addition to malaria (i.e., whether to test opportunistically for schistosomiasis or use mass drug administration(MDA) as per usual practice).We performed the analysis on three comparators varying testing accuracy and costs.
resultsSentinel screening can provide added value to the testing of patients compared with the status quo: when schistosomiasis prevalence is high then MDA is preferential; if low prevalence, treating no one is preferred. If the disease has average levels of prevalence, then a strategy involving testing is preferred. Prevalence thresholds driving the dominant strategy are dependent upon the model parameters, which are highly context specific. At average levels of prevalence for schistosomiasis and malaria for Uganda, adding a sentinel screening was cost-effective when the accuracy of test was higher than current diagnostics and when economies of scope were generated(Expected value clinical Information = 0.65$ per DALY averted, 137.91$ per correct diagnoses).Protocols using diagnostics with current accuracy levels were preferred only for levels of MDA coverage below 75%.
conclusionThe importance of the epidemiological setting is crucial in determining the best cost-effective strategy for detecting endemic disease. Economies of scope can make sentinel screenings cost-effective strategies in specific contexts. Blanket thresholds recommended for MDA may not always be the preferred option for endemic diseases.
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.