ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Early cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel rapid diagnostic test for tuberculosis in rural Philippine settings.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where gold standard molecular diagnostic assays like Xpert MTB/RIF are relatively frequently inaccessible. A novel rapid molecular diagnostic test (nLRDT), which can test tongue swab samples, and is more suitable for decentralised primary healthcare settings, has been developed and is currently undergoing preclinical validation. This study evaluated the early cost-effectiveness of this nLRDT vs. Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in rural Philippine primary healthcare settings. A hybrid decision tree and Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from health provider and societal perspectives. Parameters were taken from relevant literature, national-level data, and expert opinion. Costs were expressed in 2024 US dollars and cost-effectiveness evaluated by comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with willingness-to-pay threshold estimates. An estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $1,357 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. The nLRDT was cost-effective with sputum samples, from both perspectives, with net monetary benefits (NMBs) of $26.62 (societal perspective) and $19.21 (provider perspective) at the WTP threshold of $1,357. Similarly, the nLRDT was estimated to be cost-effective for tongue swab samples from both perspectives, with NMBs of $43.81 (societal) and $24.79 (provider). Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified the specificity of nLRDT as the key driver of cost-effectiveness, with cost-effectiveness maintained at greater WTP thresholds and varying combinations of test performance characteristics. Our findings suggest the nLRDT can be a cost-effective diagnostic tool in rural Philippines, and possibly other similar, contexts. This has positive research, industry, and policymaking implications.
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.