ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient-cost studies on self-administered treatment (SAT) for drug-sensitive tuberculosis compared to facility-based directly observed treatment, short-course (DOTS): a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany patients with tuberculosis (TB) suffer from a huge economic burden, even though TB services are often provided free of charge at the point of care. Costs can create significant barriers, hindering patients' access to TB treatment. These costs include direct medical costs (such as consultation fees), direct non-medical costs (such as transportation costs) and indirect costs (such as wages foregone). This systematic review aims to synthesise the best available evidence on economic evaluations of patient-cost studies on self-administered treatment (SAT) for drug-sensitive TB compared with facility-based directly observed treatment, short-course (FB DOTS), globally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and search PubMed, Academic Search Complete, Scopus, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO) and Google Scholar for articles published up to 2025, without date restrictions. Eligible studies must be full or partial (cost analyses without effectiveness data) economic evaluations conducted globally, comparing SAT to FB DOTS regarding TB patient costs. Grey literature will be included. Exclusion criteria include studies not reporting patient costs between SAT and FB DOTS, and non-economic evaluations (non-original research). Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment. A quality assessment will be performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement, the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist and the ROBINS-I tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review because it does not use individual patient data. Instead, we will use publicly available economic evaluation research studies. Findings will be presented at international and national conferences and published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024591221.
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.