ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026
Component Clinical and Cost Outcomes Complementing Value of Information: Case Study of a Tuberculosis Diagnostics Clinical Trial.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeConventional value-of-information (VOI) analysis bases decisions on a composite cost-effectiveness measure that aggregates clinical and cost outcomes. We sought to highlight potentially informative tradeoffs by estimating and reporting the "disaggregated" components, allowing stakeholders-such as clinicians, patients, trial funders, policymakers, and trial networks-to identify what drives the value of additional research.
methodsWe used a microsimulation to project the value of a hypothetical trial comparing mortality associated with different tuberculosis screening strategies among hospitalized patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Apart from expressing VOI as conventional, "aggregated" net monetary benefit (NMB), we assessed "disaggregated" outcomes that contribute to NMB calculations: tuberculosis cases detected, deaths, life-years, and healthcare costs associated with trial-informed decisions. We varied key parameters in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We considered two willingness-to-pay thresholds: US $3000/year of life saved (YLS) (~50% of South Africa's per-capita gross domestic product [GDP]); and $780/YLS, the willingness-to-pay value where decision uncertainty is highest, per the baseline analysis.
resultsAt willingness to pay = $3000/YLS, implementing the post-trial optimal strategy would produce favorable incremental NMB ($654.3 million) and better clinical outcomes (57,000 additional tuberculosis cases detected, 16,000 fewer deaths, and 294,000 more life-years), but it would incur an additional $37.4 million in healthcare costs over 5 years. At willingness to pay = $780/YLS, implementing the post-trial optimal strategy would yield positive incremental NMB of $2.5 million while lowering healthcare costs by $11 million, but it would produce worse clinical outcomes: 18,000 fewer tuberculosis cases detected, 6,000 additional deaths, and 80,000 fewer life-years.
conclusionsThough a trial may yield positive NMB in conventional VOI analysis owing to expected cost savings, some clinical outcomes might be unfavorable. To better inform priorities, VOI studies should include disaggregated outcomes alongside aggregated NMB.
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.