MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1-S4.30 Point-of-Care HIV Testing with OraQuick Advance HIV-1/2 antibody assay: a systematic review of cost outcomes

2011· review· en· W2328011829 on OpenAlexaff
Bhairavi Balram, Mira Johri, Denis Ebot Ako-Arrey, Gilles Lambert, Christiane Claessens, Marina B. Klein, Jorge Martinez Cajas, Rosanna Ŵ. Peeling, Nitika Pant Pai

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Infections · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité de MontréalQueen's UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Context (archaeology)Meta-analysisEconomic evaluationFalse positive paradoxCritical appraisalCost effectivenessCost-effectiveness analysisFamily medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Recently Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group called for a shift from diagnostic accuracy to emphasis on patient-centred outcomes for making policy recommendations. While meta-analyses have evaluated diagnostic accuracy of POC HIV tests, a systematic appraisal of other implementation research outcomes, such as cost, is lacking. Within this context, we reviewed global evidence on cost outcomes of OraQuick Advance HIV—1/2 Antibody Test. Method We systematically searched six electronic databases for the period of January 1999 to January 2011. Cost outcomes with OraQuick tests were reviewed and data extracted. For economic evaluation we accepted both partial and full study designs. Outcomes were synthesised into a narrative review. Results We identified nine studies offering economic evaluations of oral and blood based OraQuick, of which six were full economic evaluations and remaining were partial evaluations. The full economic evaluations included five Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and one Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) design; one partial evaluation was a cost comparison study and two were cost analysis studies. All studies were in the USA except one, which was from Mexico. All studies performed sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of uncertainty in their model parameters and findings. Methodological approaches applied by the authors were not standardised and program cost varied by location, but overall there was uniformity in the study conclusions. The studies concluded that OraQuick was cost effective in low prevalence settings and resulted in low rates of false positives which have favourable economic implications. The tests were found to be cost saving to the medical system, and offer the advantage of convenience in administration when compared to current standards of care. Since it was recognised that pre- and post-test counselling cost and personnel costs accounted for most of the overall costs for these rapid tests, one approach that was proposed to reduce this cost was to limit the time spent on counselling or by using lower-paid personnel for counselling activities. Conclusion The economic evaluation results presented here can guide program managers and health policy decision makers in the research for efficient HIV testing options, for the proper allocation of healthcare resources and for adoption of models of healthcare delivery that represent the best value for money.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexually Transmitted InfectionsSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207