ArticleBMC health services research2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis of novel stool processing methods for diagnosis of tuberculosis in children under 5 years of age in Uganda.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStool-based molecular assays for childhood tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis have shown promise as an alternative to respiratory sample testing. While implementation is underway, evidence on cost-effectiveness is needed. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the costs of stool testing with Xpert Ultra and model the cost-effectiveness of implementation scenarios at lower levels of care.
methodsWe measured costs for three new stool processing methods: Simple One-Step (SOS), Stool Processing Kit, and Optimized Sucrose Flotation. Each method mixed stool with Xpert Sample Reagent buffer, incubated to allow sedimentation, and then dispensed the supernatant into the Xpert Ultra cartridge. While the other methods required additional buffer and supplies, SOS used only the Sample Reagent. Using the least costly method, we modeled implementation for children under 5 years with presumptive TB at primary health clinics or district hospitals in Uganda. Clinical diagnosis with treatment-decision algorithms was compared to stool testing at primary clinics, stool testing at primary clinics with referral to district hospitals if negative, or evaluation only at district hospitals with Xpert Ultra testing on respiratory samples. Using decision-tree models, we calculated the cost in international dollars (I$) per life-years saved (LYS) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) assessed against the country-specific willingness to pay threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsSOS was the least costly stool processing method. Compared to diagnosis with only treatment-decision algorithms, the ICER of SOS/Ultra at primary clinics was I$1041.71/LYS, SOS/Ultra with referral was I$874.82/LYS, while the district hospital strategy was dominated. Sensitivity analyses showed stool testing was cost-effective compared to only clinical diagnosis if TB prevalence at primary clinics was above 5.7%, with higher diagnostic accuracy of stool-based testing, or lower testing costs.
conclusionsFor young children, stool testing at primary clinics, with or without referral to district hospitals, lowered costs in relation to lives saved compared to implementing at district hospitals alone or only clinical diagnosis using the treatment-decision algorithms.
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.