Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39477335›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2024

Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital technologies for support of tuberculosis treatment adherence: a systematic review.

Cedric Kafie, Mona Salaheldin Mohamed, Miranda Zary, Chimweta Ian Chilala, Shruti Bahukudumbi, Genevieve Gore, Nicola Foster, Katherine L Fielding, Ramnath Subbaraman, Kevin Schwartzman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

10 authors.

Cedric KafieMcGill International Tuberculosis Centre, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mona Salaheldin MohamedMcGill International Tuberculosis Centre, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Miranda ZaryMcGill International Tuberculosis Centre, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Chimweta Ian ChilalaTB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Shruti BahukudumbiDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Genevieve GoreMcGill Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Nicola FosterTB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Katherine L FieldingTB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6524-3754
Ramnath SubbaramanDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2063-943X
Kevin SchwartzmanMcGill International Tuberculosis Centre, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada kevin.schwartzman@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-1159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital adherence technologies (DATs) may provide a patient-centred approach to supporting tuberculosis (TB) medication adherence and improving treatment outcomes. We synthesised evidence addressing costs and cost-effectiveness of DATs to support TB treatment.

methodsA systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD42022313531) identified relevant literature from January 2000 to April 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science along with preprints from medRxiv, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies with observational, experimental or quasi-experimental designs (minimum 20 participants) and modelling studies reporting quantitative data on the cost or cost-effectiveness of DATs for TB infection or disease treatment were included. Study characteristics, cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes were extracted.

resultsOf 3619 titles identified by our systematic search, 29 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 9 addressed cost-effectiveness. DATs included short message service (SMS) reminders, phone-based technologies, digital pillboxes, ingestible sensors and video-observed therapy (VOT). VOT was the most extensively studied (16 studies) and was generally cost saving when compared with healthcare provider directly observed therapy (DOT), particularly when costs to patients were included-though findings were largely from high-income countries. Cost-effectiveness findings were highly variable, ranging from no clinical effect in one study (SMS), to greater effectiveness with concurrent cost savings (VOT) in others. Only eight studies adequately reported at least 80% of the elements required by Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, a standard reporting checklist for health economic evaluations.

conclusionDATs may be cost saving or cost-effective compared with healthcare provider DOT, particularly in high-income settings. However, more data of higher quality are needed, notably in lower-income and middle-income countries which have the greatest TB burden.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDigital TechnologyMedication AdherenceTuberculosisAntitubercular AgentsDirectly Observed TherapyHumansReminder SystemsAntitubercular AgentsGlobal HealthSystematic reviewTreatmentTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID39477335
PMCPMC11529515

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.