ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Systematic review of the economic impact of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection compared with tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assays.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expanding the Frontiers of Tuberculosis Prevention: Moving from Targeted Preventive Therapy to Integrated Public Health Strategies.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of the LIOFeron®TB/LTBI IGRA for screening of paediatric LTBI and tuberculosis.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Prospects and Research Trends of Tuberculosis in Iran: A Bibliometric Study With a Science Mapping Approach.Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection: A modelling study.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Purified Protein Derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and blood-based Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) specific interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are the currently used tests for identifying individuals with TB infection for preventive treatment. However, challenges around access and implementation have limited their use. Novel M.tb specific skin tests (TBST) such as Diaskintest, ESAT6-CFP10 (C-TST), C-Tb (also known as Cy-Tb), and DPPD may provide accurate and scalable options but evidence synthesis on their economic impact is lacking. We conducted two separate systematic reviews to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of (1) the novel skin tests TBST (primary), and (2) TST and IGRA tests (secondary), to support WHO guideline development. We searched for articles presenting economic evaluations of the diagnostic tests using a health provider perspective and related to TB infection in humans. We considered papers written in English, Chinese or Russian. In the primary review, eight studies for novel TBST were found. One study in Brazil assessed cost-effectiveness of C-TST and Diaskintest and seven in Russia assessed the Diaskintest, while none evaluated C-Tb or DPPD. The review showed on average, Diaskintest kit costs (in 2021 USD) $1.60 (1.50 - 1.70), while full unit costs were estimated at $5.07. C-TST unit cost was $9.96. The second review found 32 articles on IGRA and/or the TST. These presented an average TST full unit cost of $37.88, and $87.81 for IGRA. Studies' quality for TBST was limited while high-quality studies were found for TST and IGRA tests. In conclusion, there is limited evidence regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of novel TBST. Conversely, there is substantial evidence for TST and IGRA tests, but most studies were performed in high-income and low-TB burden settings and their cost-effectiveness varied between and within risk groups without clear economic consensus.
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.