ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Resources to implement general population mobile chest x-ray screening for tuberculosis in Uganda: A trial-based costing analysis.
Article in PLOS global 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mobile chest X-ray (CXR) screening interventions are recommended for tuberculosis (TB) screening in high-burden settings, but implementation costs are variable and underreported. Using time-driven activity-based costing, we evaluated the costs of implementing general-population mobile CXR screening in peri-urban Uganda. We conducted a micro-costing analysis of mobile CXR screening using data from an ongoing randomized crossover trial. We adopted a healthcare payer perspective, categorizing costs into equipment, personnel, space, implementation, and consumables. We calculated per-participant costs for each step in the TB screening cascade, as well as total screening and diagnostic costs per positive microbiological result (Xpert Ultra). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the cost implications of varying the screening volume or radiographic risk score thresholds. Among 90,668 age-eligible participants completing CXR screening, 14,630 sputum specimens were collected for Xpert testing (16.1%), including 1,676 from participants who submitted sputum without completing CXR. Overall, 511 participants had valid Xpert-positive results (3.5%), corresponding to 5.6 Xpert-positive results per 1,000 CXRs performed. The estimated cost was $4.41 per person screened and $1,299 per Xpert-positive result (95% uncertainty interval: $1,134-$1,488). Screening and diagnostic costs accounted for 64% and 36% of the cost per Xpert-positive result, respectively. Daily screening volume strongly influenced the cost per positive Xpert result, whereas less stringent X-ray thresholds increased the number of TB cases detected with minimal impact on average cost per positive Xpert. Mobile CXR screening interventions for TB require substantial investment in resources. Program planners can optimize efficiency by targeting high-burden populations, increasing participant volume, and optimizing X-ray risk cutoffs for follow-up diagnostic testing. Our findings highlight the value of context-specific cost data for guiding decisions on scaling up TB screening interventions.
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.