ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies for mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in India and Brazil.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tuberculosis infection tests for contact screening in Brazil: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Advances in the Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection.Infection and drug resistance · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The economic value of new skin-based tests and blood-based interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for tuberculosis (TB) infection is not yet well-established. This study evaluates the cost and cost-effectiveness in two high-burden countries by comparing:(a) new skin-based tests(Diaskintest and Cy-Tb) with the purified protein derivative (PPD)-tuberculin test (TST);(b) IGRAs (Standard E TB-Feron ELISA (TBF))with approved IGRAs (QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-GP)and TSPOT.TB); and (c) the best performing skin-based test with the best performing IGRA) based on cost effectiveness. In this paper, we developed a decision tree model for India and Brazil from a health system perspective. To quantify the effect of parameter variability and uncertainty, we performed both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The study findings reveal that among skin-based tests, the Diaskintest is more cost-effective compared to TST-PPD at 22.6 USD and 41.0 USD per correctly diagnosed case of TB infection for Brazil and India, respectively. For blood-based assays, TSPOT.TB outperforms QFT-GP and TBF due to its lower cost and higher effectiveness. When compared with Diaskintest, TSPOT.TB has an incremental cost of approximately 8 USD and 6 USD for India and Brazil respectively but is more effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 74 USD and 55 USD for India and Brazil, respectively. In summary, while Diaskintest is potentially cost-saving when compared to TSPOT.TB in these two high-burden TB countries but the TSPOT.TB demonstrates higher effectiveness.
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.