ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Economic Evaluation of Molecular Testing for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Rapid molecular assays such as Xpert MTB/RIF and TB-LAMP accelerate pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis but are more expensive than smear microscopy. This study provided an updated economic synthesis for presumptive adult pulmonary TB in high-burden settings, broadening the evidence from Xpert MTB/RIF to other WHO endorsed tests compared to conventional strategies. Methods: Medline, Embase and Scopus were searched through March 2025. The strategy combined search terms related to molecular diagnostic tests, pulmonary tuberculosis, and economic evaluation study designs. Full economic evaluations comparing molecular tests with smear microscopy, culture or passive case-finding were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and adjusted costs to 2025 US dollars (USD) using average exchange rates. Reporting quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. Due to heterogeneity in evaluation criteria, model structures, time horizons, and outcome measures, meta-analysis were not feasible. Therefore, results were synthesized narratively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were contextualized against country-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds to enable meaningful cross-study interpretation. Results: Eight studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries with high TB burdens were included. All evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and the Thai studies also examined TB-LAMP. Five studies reported cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, while three used TB cases detected or years of life saved (YLS). CHEERS reporting quality was high (median is 23/28 items). Reported ICERs for molecular testing were either cost-saving or highly cost-effective compared with country-specific thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (five studies) indicated ≥90% probability of cost-effectiveness in four studies and 6% in one. Conclusion: Recent evidence supports the cost-effectiveness and cost-saving of Xpert MTB/RIF and TB-LAMP for diagnosing adult pulmonary TB. Policymakers should prioritize reducing cartridge costs and implementing models that capture patient-level benefits to maximize economic benefits.
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.