ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct an economic analysis of the use of combined ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) and CRP (C-Reactive Protein) testing strategies compared to CRP testing alone in U.S hospitals. Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of combined ESR and CRP testing compared to CRP alone. The model estimated the laboratory costs, number of misdiagnoses, and follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and clinical guidelines. Two combined testing strategies were evaluated: 1) result is positive only if both ESR and CRP results are positive (ESR + CRP) and 2) result is positive if either the ESR or CRP result is positive (ESR/CRP). Strategies were evaluated for five individual and three grouped conditions. Results: Results demonstrated that the ESR + CRP testing strategy is a cost-effective strategy for reducing misdiagnoses and is expected to result in a net cost reduction to the healthcare system when accounting for the reduction in follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. In contrast, the ESR/CRP strategy led to increased misdiagnoses when compared to CRP alone. Conclusion: Results indicate that adopting the ESR + CRP strategy would reduce misdiagnoses and overall costs to healthcare systems.
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.