ArticleIJTLD open2025
A cost-effectiveness evaluation of methods for screening for TB infection in patients with diabetes mellitus.
Article in IJTLD open, 2025. 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
backgroundGlobally, 10.6 million TB cases occurred in 2021. Malaysia reported 25,000 TB cases in 2022, and also has a high prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM), amplifying TB risks.
objectiveAssess the cost-effectiveness of QuantiFERON (QFT-plus) versus tuberculin skin test (TST) for diagnosing TB infection in patients with DM in Malaysia.
methodsUsing an R-based model, we compared QFT-plus to TST. The analysis included individuals with HbA1C >10%. Primary outcomes encompassed costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and averted TB cases.
resultsQFT-plus costs US$111.29 per person versus US$285.66 for TST. It generated 16.51 QALYs per person, compared to 16.50 QALYs for TST. Despite higher initial screening costs, its improved diagnostic accuracy enables earlier treatment, reducing active TB progression risk by 26% compared to TST. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses consistently favoured QFT-plus.
conclusionDespite its higher initial cost, QFT-plus is both more economical and clinically superior to TST in the context of Malaysia's high prevalence of DM. This underscores the need for its broader adoption through policy shifts to incorporate QFT-plus into national guidelines. Future research should address implementation and broader socio-economic aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.