TB diagnostic tests: How do we figure out their costs?
Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, ISSN: 1478-7210, Vol: 7, Issue: 6, Page: 723-733
2009
- 35Citations
- 138Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations35
- Citation Indexes32
- 32
- CrossRef18
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Captures138
- Readers138
- 138
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Review Description
Tuberculosis continues to be a major global health problem. Lack of accurate, rapid and cost-effective diagnostic tests poses a huge obstacle to global TB control. While several new diagnostic tools are being developed and evaluated for TB, it is important that new tools are introduced for widespread use only after careful validation of accuracy, impact as well as cost-effectiveness in real-world settings. While there are large numbers of studies on the accuracy of TB diagnostic tests, there are few studies that are focused on cost and cost-effectiveness. There are currently no widely accepted standards on how to evaluate costs of a TB test. In this review, we describe the basic approach for computing the costs of TB diagnostic tests, and provide templates for various data elements and parameters that go into the costing ana lysis. We hope this will pave the way for a standardized methodology for costing of TB diagnostic tests. Such a tool would enable improved and more generalizable costing analyses that can provide a strong foundation for more sophisticated economic analyses that evaluate the full economic and epidemiological impact resulting from the implementation and routine use of performance-verified new and innovative diagnostic tools. This, in turn, will facilitate evidence-based adoption and use of new diagnostics, especially in resource-limited settings. © 2009 Expert Reviews Ltd.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know