↓ Skip to main content

Cost analysis of rapid diagnostics for drug-resistant tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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 analysis of rapid diagnostics for drug-resistant tuberculosis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3013-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik J. Groessl, Theodore G. Ganiats, Naomi Hillery, Andre Trollip, Roberta L. Jackson, Donald G. Catanzaro, Timothy C. Rodwell, Richard S. Garfein, Camilla Rodrigues, Valeriu Crudu, Thomas C. Victor, Antonino Catanzaro

Abstract

Growth-based drug susceptibility testing (DST) is the reference standard for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), but standard time to result (TTR) is typically ≥ 3 weeks. Rapid tests can reduce that TTR to days or hours, but accuracy may be lowered. In addition to the TTR and test accuracy, the cost of a diagnostic test may affect whether it is adopted in clinical settings. We examine the cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostics for extremely drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) in three different high-prevalence settings. 1128 patients with confirmed TB were enrolled at clinics in Mumbai, India; Chisinau, Moldova; and Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Patient sputum samples underwent DST for first and second line TB drugs using 2 growth-based (MGIT, MODS) and 2 molecular (Pyrosequencing [PSQ], line-probe assays [LPA]) assays. TTR was the primary measure of effectiveness. Sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated. The cost to perform each test at each site was recorded and included test-specific materials, personnel, and equipment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in terms of $/day saved. Sensitivity analyses examine the impact of batch size, equipment, and personnel costs. Our prior results indicated that the LPA and PSQ returned results in a little over 1 day. Mean cost per sample without equipment or overhead was $23, $28, $33, and $41 for the MODS, MGIT, PSQ, and LPA, respectively. For diagnosing XDR-TB, MODS was the most accurate, followed by PSQ, and LPA. MODS was quicker and less costly than MGIT. PSQ and LPA were considerably faster but cost more than MODS. Batch size and personnel costs were the main drivers of cost variation. Multiple factors must be weighed when selecting a test for diagnosis of XDR-TB. Rapid tests can greatly improve the time required to diagnose drug-resistant TB, potentially improving treatment success, and preventing the spread of XDR-TB. Faster time to result must be weighed against the potential for reduced accuracy, and increased costs. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02170441 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 41 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 43 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,030,795
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#976
of 8,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,729
of 337,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#14
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 337,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.