ArticleJournal of global health2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a prediction model for community-based screening of active tuberculosis.
Article in Journal of global 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.
- The health impact of identifying a person with tuberculosis through systematic screening.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Adverse drug reactions in tuberculosis treatment: Incidence, duration and resolution pathways from a mixed-methods patient-centric study in India.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Active case finding could effectively detect tuberculosis (TB) patients, but it can be costly. Therefore, a feasible, cost-saving, and efficient algorithm for community-based TB screening is needed. Methods: The study population was based on a previous TB prevalence survey conducted in the Zambia/South Africa Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS Reduction trial. We developed predictive scoring models for HIV-positive and HIV-negative/unknown populations for practical purposes. We compared the cost-effectiveness of our models with that of WHO tools through average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: The prediction model for HIV-positive population presented higher area under the curve (AUC) = 0.652, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.602-0.701) than WHO-recommended four-symptom screen (AUC = 0.568, 95% CI = 0.524-0.612) among South African participants. The AUC of the model for HIV-negative/unknown population was 0.673 (95% CI = 0.648-0.697), which was higher than that of the WHO tools as well. The ACER of our model can range from 246 to 1670 USD per TB case detected in the South African communities. Conclusions: The scoring system for active TB case finding presented a better performance and showed cost-effectiveness, which can provide new strategies for active TB case finding with multiple options under budget considerations.
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.