ReviewBMJ public health2024
Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools and strategies for the screening and diagnosis of tuberculosis disease and infection: a scoping review.
Review in BMJ 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.
- Article
- Policies, practices, opportunities and challenges for tuberculosis screening: a global survey of national tuberculosis programmes.BMJ global 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this scoping review is to understand the cost-effectiveness of current and future tools/strategies for screening and diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) infection and disease. To this end, PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were used to identify any English language reports on the cost-effectiveness of TB infection/disease screening/diagnostic strategies published between 1 January 2017 and 7 October 2023. Studies included high-burden/risk TB populations, compared diagnostic/screening methods and conducted a cost-effectiveness/economic evaluation. We stratified the included articles in four groups (cost-effectiveness of diagnosing TB disease/infection and cost-effectiveness of screening for TB disease/infection). A full-text review was conducted, and relevant costing data extracted. Of the 2417 articles identified in the initial search, 112 duplicates were removed, and 2305 articles were screened for title and abstract. 23 full articles were reviewed, and 17 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. While sputum smear microscopy (SSM) has been the primary method of diagnosing TB disease in high-burden countries, the current body of literature suggests that SSM is likely to be the least cost-effective tool for the diagnosis of TB disease. Further scale-up with molecular diagnostics, such as GeneXpert and Truenat, was shown to be broadly cost-effective, with a multitest approach likely to be cost-effective for both screening and diagnosis. There is an urgent need to increase access and remove barriers to implementation of diagnostics that have been repeatedly shown to be cost-effective, as well as to develop new diagnostic and screening technologies/strategies to address current barriers to scale-up.
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.