ArticleHealth economics review2026
Point-of-care core needle biopsy pathway for early diagnosis of lymph node masses: comparative costing of a scalable pathway.
Article in Health economics review, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundThere are three common and significant causes of lymphadenopathy (LAP) in tuberculosis-and-HIV-endemic settings - tuberculosis, lymphoma, and metastatic solid organ cancers. Overlapping clinical symptoms of these diseases necessitates diagnostic procedural investigation. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) with Xpert TB/RIF Ultra has good sensitivity for tuberculosis diagnosis, while FNA cytology can detect solid cancer lymph node metastasis, although with lower sensitivity. Critically, lymphoma cannot be reliably detected or classified using FNA. Lymphoma diagnosis often is made after repeat testing and eventual surgical excision biopsy (SEB), contributing to treatment delays, inappropriate empiric anti-tuberculosis therapy, and increased strain on already limited healthcare resources.
methodsThis study presents a comparative provider-perspective cost analysis of three diagnostic procedures: FNA, SEB and core-needle biopsy (CNB). Costs were evaluated for individual procedures and within investigative pathways for unexplained LAP. Data were collected at Groote Schuur Hospital, a tertiary academic hospital in South Africa, during 2018 and 2025. Costing was conducted using a mixed-methods approach combining bottom-up ingredients-based costing with top-down allocation of overheads. Capital costs were annualised, and all costs were adjusted to 2025 values in United States dollars.
resultsHistological diagnosis and tuberculosis testing using CNB were less costly (US$ 145) than either SEB (US$ 244), or FNA cytology and tuberculosis testing (US$ 179). Total investigative costs increased substantially when repeat FNAs were required while awaiting access to SEB (US$ 518). CNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and obviated the need for further procedures in most cases, improving diagnostic efficiency and offering significant potential for cost savings. Sensitivity analyses suggested further reductions in CNB costs are possible through task-shifting to junior clinicians and through the use of reusable biopsy equipment.
conclusionThe CNB-centred diagnostic approach to lymphadenopathy provides lower-cost, timeous, and accurate diagnosis of the three most significant causes of LAP in tuberculosis- and HIV-endemic settings. This approach enables early initiation of appropriate treatment, reduces unnecessary procedures, and optimises the use of limited healthcare resources. These findings support the integration of CNB into national diagnostic algorithms and highlight the value of investments in training and equipment to enable its decentralised implementation.
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.