ReviewHealth economics review2025
Health economic evaluations of diagnostic tests for tuberculosis: a narrative review.
Review in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTuberculosis is the leading cause of death from infectious diseases globally. Non-specific symptoms and limitations of existing diagnostics involve challenges for informed policymaking and clinical practice. This paper reviews common practices in reporting the selection and definition of cost and effect parameters, and in reporting the translation of effect parameters into utility and disability weights, in health economic evaluations of TB diagnostic tests.
methodsA targeted literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified health economic evaluations of diagnosis and population screening strategies for TB.
resultsWe found 28 studies comprising 11 cost-effectiveness and 17 cost-utility analyses. Observed patient data were used in 6 studies, 22 relied solely on model-based evaluations. Variations in prevalence, accuracy, and utility parameters were common, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards terminology for costing was only used in 8 out of 28 studies. DISCUSSION: Future studies should state the exact type of TB studied, as it can manifest in multiple organs, remain inactive for long periods of time, and since different diagnostics can perform differently depending on the site involved it may influence test accuracies. Additionally, potential impacts of sequential diagnostics on test accuracy and the cost of inaction should receive more attention.
conclusionPrecise terminology and transparent definitions of parameters and methodology in health economics evaluations are necessary to generate evidence that guides policymakers and supports clinical decision-making in the context of TB.
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.