| Title |
A systematic review of the economic impact of rapid diagnostic tests for dengue
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2789-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacqueline Kyungah Lim, Neal Alexander, Gian Luca Di Tanna |
| Abstract |
Dengue fever is rapidly expanding geographically, with about half of the world's population now at risk. Among the various diagnostic options, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are convenient and prompt, but limited in terms of accuracy and availability. A systematic review was conducted of published data on the use of RDTs for dengue with respect to their economic impact. The search was conducted with combinations of key search terms, including "((Dengue[Title]) AND cost/economic)" and "rapid diagnostic test/assay (or point-of-care)". Articles with insufficient report on cost/economic aspect of dengue RDTs, usually on comparison of different RDTs or assessment of novel rapid diagnostic tools, were excluded. This review has been registered in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registry #: CRD42015017775). Eleven articles were found through advanced search on Pubmed. From Embase and Web of Science, two and 14 articles were obtained, respectively. After removal of duplicate items, title screening was done on 21 published works and 12 titles, including 2 meeting abstracts, were selected for abstract review. For full-text review, by two independent reviewers, 5 articles and 1 meeting abstract were selected. Among these, the abstract was referring to the same study results as one of the articles. After full text review, two studies (two articles and one abstract) were found to report on cost-wise or economic benefits of dengue RDTs and were selected for data extraction. One study found satisfactory performance of IgM-based Panbio RDT, concluding that it would be cost-effective in endemic settings. The second study was a modeling analysis and showed that a dengue RDT would not be advantageous in terms of cost and effectiveness compared to current practice of antibiotics prescription for acute febrile illness. Despite growing use of RDTs in research and clinical settings, there were limited data to demonstrate an economic impact. The available two studies reached different conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of dengue RDTs, although only one of the two studies reported outcomes from cost-effectiveness analysis of dengue and the other was considering febrile illness more generally. Evidence of such an impact would require further quantitative economic studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 50 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,387,208
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,372
of 8,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,931
of 451,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#126
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 451,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.