Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41710019›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026

Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests.

Ben Yarnoff, Walter Morris, Hossein Zivaripiran, Megan McCutcheon, Thomas Koshy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ben YarnoffEvidera, PPD Clinical Research Services, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Walter MorrisEvidera, PPD Clinical Research Services, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Hossein ZivaripiranEvidera, PPD Clinical Research Services, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Megan McCutcheonALCOR Scientific LLC, Smithfield, RI, USA.
Thomas KoshyBeeatus Solutions, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysisC-reactive proteinCRPdiagnostic efficiencyeconomic analysiserythrocyte sedimentation rateESRin vitro diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID41710019
PMCPMC12912126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.