ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Impact of
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: A Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology was applied to evaluate the social and economic return obtained for each euro invested in IVD tests over a 1-year period, across the selected conditions. The analysis was supported by scientific articles, official data, grey sources, and perspectives gathered from stakeholders through interviews and focus groups. For each pathology, an impact map was developed to identify inputs, outputs and outcomes from the perspective of patients, family/caregivers, healthcare professionals, healthcare providers, healthcare systems and society. A consistently conservative approach was adopted in estimating quantities and monetary valuations. Results: The estimated SROI ratios revealed substantial returns: €8.2 for every €1 invested in PCR tests and professional Ag-RDTs for COVID-19, highlighting their importance in the diagnosis and transmission control; €6 for every €1 invested in glycated hemoglobin and glucose self-monitoring tests for diabetes; €12.6 for every €1 invested in B-type natriuretic peptide tests after prescription in primary care; and €14.9 for every €1 invested in molecular testing, specifically next-generation sequencing, in stage IV lung adenocarcinoma. These returns reflect improvements in health outcomes, healthcare efficiency, and productivity. Discussion: The case studies revealed economic and social returns ranging from six to fifteen times the initial investment. The findings demonstrated that investing in IVD tests improves clinical decision-making, enhances quality of life, and reduces healthcare costs. Policymakers should recognize IVD tests not merely as diagnostic tools, but as strategic levers to improve public health and economic resilience. These four case studies demonstrate IVD tests value and provide a snapshot of the wider benefits of its applications.
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.