ArticlePloS one2026
Cost-effectiveness of biofire assay for respiratory infection testing: An economic evaluation exploring the inclusion of the costs of antimirobial resistance.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often face acute symptom exacerbations. Current management approaches lack precision in diagnosis. To address this, the Biofire Film Array Respiratory Panel RP 2.1 (RP 2.1+) test was developed, aiming to swiftly confirm or rule out common respiratory viral and bacterial infections. This study aims to evaluate the RP 2.1 + test's cost-effectiveness and explore the potential impact of accounting for the costs of antimicrobial resistance.
methodsWe conducted a model-based cost-utility analysis from a healthcare perspective over 40 years. The design of our model, along with its parameters, was informed by insights from a targeted literature review and expert opinions. To account for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) two approaches were adopted. Including applying penalty points to the cost of antibiotic prescriptions and estimating the potential cost savings from reductions in AMR.
resultsThe results indicate that the RP 2.1 + test is cost-saving and more effective. The difference in costs and QALYs between arms were £2762.40 and 0.03 respectively and there is a 70% chance that the RP 2.1 + test is cost-effective. The analysis suggest that potential annual savings from adopting the RP 2.1 + test could range between £118 million and £18.6 billion annually.
conclusionThe RP 2.1 + test represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources and would lead to significant savings with respect to AMR. The study has attempted to account for AMR within the economic evaluation and has highlighted areas where further research is needed to account for AMR more precisely in future evaluations.
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.