↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of microscopic observation drug susceptibility test versus Xpert MTB/Rif test for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV patients in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of microscopic observation drug susceptibility test versus Xpert MTB/Rif test for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV patients in Uganda
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1804-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Walusimbi, Brendan Kwesiga, Rashmi Rodrigues, Melles Haile, Ayesha de Costa, Lennart Bogg, Achilles Katamba

Abstract

Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility (MODS) and Xpert MTB/Rif (Xpert) are highly sensitive tests for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of utilizing MODS versus Xpert for diagnosis of active pulmonary TB in HIV infected patients in Uganda. A decision analysis model comparing MODS versus Xpert for TB diagnosis was used. Costs were estimated by measuring and valuing relevant resources required to perform the MODS and Xpert tests. Diagnostic accuracy data of the tests were obtained from systematic reviews involving HIV infected patients. We calculated base values for unit costs and varied several assumptions to obtain the range estimates. Cost effectiveness was expressed as costs per TB patient diagnosed for each of the two diagnostic strategies. Base case analysis was performed using the base estimates for unit cost and diagnostic accuracy of the tests. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a range of value estimates for resources, prevalence, number of tests and diagnostic accuracy. The unit cost of MODS was US$ 6.53 versus US$ 12.41 of Xpert. Consumables accounted for 59 % (US$ 3.84 of 6.53) of the unit cost for MODS and 84 % (US$10.37 of 12.41) of the unit cost for Xpert. The cost effectiveness ratio of the algorithm using MODS was US$ 34 per TB patient diagnosed compared to US$ 71 of the algorithm using Xpert. The algorithm using MODS was more cost-effective compared to the algorithm using Xpert for a wide range of different values of accuracy, cost and TB prevalence. The cost (threshold value), where the algorithm using Xpert was optimal over the algorithm using MODS was US$ 5.92. MODS versus Xpert was more cost-effective for the diagnosis of PTB among HIV patients in our setting. Efforts to scale-up MODS therefore need to be explored. However, since other non-economic factors may still favour the use of Xpert, the current cost of the Xpert cartridge still needs to be reduced further by more than half, in order to make it economically competitive with MODS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 22%
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,451,228
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,171
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,702
of 320,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#161
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.