↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Screening strategies for active tuberculosis: focus on cost-effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Screening strategies for active tuberculosis: focus on cost-effectiveness
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s92244
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Caroline Dobler

Abstract

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in screening for active tuberculosis (TB), also called active case-finding (ACF), as a possible means to achieve control of the global TB epidemic. ACF aims to increase the detection of TB, in order to diagnose and treat patients with TB earlier than if they had been diagnosed and treated only at the time when they sought health care because of symptoms. This will reduce or avoid secondary transmission of TB to other people, with the long-term goal of reducing the incidence of TB. Here, the history of screening for active TB, current screening practices, and the role of TB-diagnostic tools are summarized and the literature on cost-effectiveness of screening for active TB reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that community-wide ACF can be cost-effective in settings with a high incidence of TB. ACF among close TB contacts is cost-effective in settings with a low as well as a high incidence of TB. The evidence for cost-effectiveness of screening among HIV-infected persons is not as strong as for TB contacts, but the reviewed studies suggest that the intervention can be cost-effective depending on the background prevalence of TB and test volume. None of the cost-effectiveness analyses were informed by data from randomized controlled trials. As the results of randomized controlled trials evaluating different ACF strategies will become available in future, we will hopefully gain a better understanding of the role that ACF can play in achieving global TB control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 25%
Researcher 26 18%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 32 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#298
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,581
of 354,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 354,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.