ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Rapid Diagnostic Testing for the Identification of Pathogens and Resistance Genes in Bloodstream Infections.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBloodstream infections (BSI) are a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Rapid detection of the causative pathogen can help optimise therapy, reduce mortality, curb antimicrobial resistance, and lower healthcare costs. This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of adding molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) to microbiology standard-of-care (SoC) methods. mRDTs evaluated include the Cobas
methodsA decision-tree model was built to quantify the incremental costs and outcomes associated with adding mRDTs to the SoC. The inputs were derived from the published literature. The analysis considered a population aged 65 years and 45% female, admitted to a United States (US) hospital with a suspected BSI. Model outcomes included costs, 30-day mortality, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and adverse events (Clostridioides difficile infection and acute kidney injury [AKI]). A United Kingdom (UK) setting in place of the US setting was also considered in the scenario analysis.
resultsA strategy involving the Cobas Eplex BCID panels as an adjunct test to the SoC dominated SoC alone without Cobas Eplex BCID panels, saving US$164 per patient and averting 24 deaths per 10,000 patients. Earlier optimisation of ineffective empiric therapy generated half of the lives saved, with the majority of the remainder from reductions in AKI. This strategy was also dominant compared with other mRDTs. In a UK setting, Cobas Eplex BCID panels remained cost effective, saving £51 compared with SoC. Results were robust to scenarios varying key model inputs including time to pathogen identification with SoC.
conclusionsThe model demonstrated improved patient survival and reduced average total costs with mRDT. The Cobas Eplex BCID panels, which have the largest pathogen coverage, reduced both mortality and overall costs compared with other mRDTs.
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.