ArticleAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of community tuberculosis screening in South Africa.
Article in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of community tuberculosis screening in South Africa.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThe World Health Organization recommends community-based tuberculosis active case finding using digital chest radiography with computer-aided detection (dCXR/CAD) and/or molecular diagnostics, but clinical and economic outcomes are unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of community-based tuberculosis screening strategies in South Africa.
methodsUsing a microsimulation model, we evaluated 3 symptom-agnostic screening strategies among adult people without HIV (PWoH) and people with HIV (PWH): (1) No Screening; (2) sputum Xpert Ultra (Xpert); and (3) dCXR/CAD followed by confirmatory sputum Xpert (dCXR + Xpert). Base case tuberculosis prevalence was 0.64%-1.23%. Sensitivity/specificity/cost for dCXR/CAD were 77%-90%/65%-73%/$3.55; for Xpert Ultra, they were 69%-91%/98%-99%/$15.24. Model outcomes included life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (<$3000/year-of-life saved [YLS] considered cost-effective). We conducted sensitivity analysis around key parameters, including test sensitivity, specificity, and cost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsIn the base case, Xpert identifies the most individuals with tuberculosis but produces the most false positives and highest costs. Compared to Xpert, dCXR + Xpert identifies ∼13% fewer individuals with tuberculosis while decreasing screening costs by ∼45%. Given base case performance characteristics, at the lifetime horizon, dCXR + Xpert is cost-effective (ICER $610/YLS) whereas Xpert is not (ICER $3460/YLS). dCXR + Xpert remains cost-effective relative to No Screening, unless tuberculosis prevalence (PWoH/PWH) is ≤0.15%/0.45%, dCXR/CAD sensitivity is (PWoH/PWH) ≤ 20%/10%, dCXR/CAD cost is ≥$34.00, Xpert Ultra cost is ≥$135.00, or linkage to tuberculosis care is ≤15%.
conclusionDigital chest radiography with computer-aided detection followed by confirmatory sputum Xpert Ultra would likely be a cost-effective strategy for tuberculosis screening in South Africa.
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.