ArticleBMJ open2026
Economic evidence of health technology innovations for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary TB in resource-limited settings: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
introductionExtrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) poses a significant diagnostic and economic challenge in HIV endemic, low-resource settings due to its complex presentation and current diagnostic tools limitations. While accurate and timely diagnosis is critical for reducing morbidity, mortality and health system costs, economic evaluations of EPTB diagnostics remain sparse and fragmented. This protocol aims to map existing evidence on the economic evaluation of diagnostic innovations for EPTB in low-resource settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodological framework and registered on the Open Science Framework. Peer-reviewed articles, grey literature and official reports published between 2000 and 2025 will be searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus and Science Direct. The search strategy is structured using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Study design and Setting (PICOTSS) framework, and will be peer-reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guideline. Study selection, data charting and extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be charted iteratively, and the methodological quality of selected economic evaluations will be appraised using the Drummond checklist. Results will be synthesised in narrative summaries and tabular formats. Final reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For review of previously published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated in professional networks, stakeholder meetings and a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF Registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/BTCPG.
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.