ArticleBMJ open2024
Rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing for urinary tract infections in secondary care in England: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Accuracy of rapid microcapillary direct antibiotic susceptibility testing for urine samples collected with bacteriostatic boric acid from patients with suspected urinary tract infection.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Single-center clinical laboratory evaluation of VITEK REVEAL for rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative organisms directly from positive blood cultures.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Rapid Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing System.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a model-based cost-effectiveness evaluation of a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test.
designA Markov model of a cohort of hospital inpatients with urinary tract infection (with inpatient numbers based on national administrative data from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019).
settingUrinary tract infections (UTI) in acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, from the perspective of the NHS Healthcare system, at a national level.
participantsA simulated cohort of approximately 280 000 non-pregnant adult inpatients within secondary care with a clinical suspicion of UTI.
interventionsEvaluation of the implementation of a fast bacterial impedance cytometry test (BICT) compared with current practice. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years, net monetary benefit, and bed days and appropriateness of antibiotic use per patient. Costs are presented in 2022 GBP.
resultsConsidering benefits arising from reduced time on inappropriate treatment, BICT gives an average net monetary benefit (NMB) over the simulation period of approximately £4.3 million and dominates culture methods (from the healthcare system perspective and with a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year). Total inappropriate prescribing days due to the BICT test are reduced by 57%. The extent of the benefit from BICT implementation was strongly dependent on prevalence of resistance, with the NMB increasing sevenfold to over £30 million in a high (40%) resistance prevalence scenario. At the population level, the patient groups with the highest cost and quality-adjusted life year impacts were 65-100-year-old females, followed by males, with uncomplicated UTIs. At an individual patient level, however, 16-64-year-old females with complicated UTIs with oral treatment, followed by 65-100-year-old males with complicated UTIs with oral treatment, were impacted to the greatest degree by the rapid BICT.
conclusionsUnder conservative assumptions and for wide parameter sensitivity, the implementation of BICT would be cost-effective from the NHS healthcare system perspective.
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.