Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests.

IF 2.2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2026-02-11 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S578961
Ben Yarnoff, Walter Morris, Hossein Zivaripiran, Megan McCutcheon, Thomas Koshy
{"title":"Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests.","authors":"Ben Yarnoff, Walter Morris, Hossein Zivaripiran, Megan McCutcheon, Thomas Koshy","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S578961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct an economic analysis of the use of combined ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) and CRP (C-Reactive Protein) testing strategies compared to CRP testing alone in U.S hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of combined ESR and CRP testing compared to CRP alone. The model estimated the laboratory costs, number of misdiagnoses, and follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and clinical guidelines. Two combined testing strategies were evaluated: 1) result is positive only if both ESR and CRP results are positive (ESR + CRP) and 2) result is positive if either the ESR or CRP result is positive (ESR/CRP). Strategies were evaluated for five individual and three grouped conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results demonstrated that the ESR + CRP testing strategy is a cost-effective strategy for reducing misdiagnoses and is expected to result in a net cost reduction to the healthcare system when accounting for the reduction in follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. In contrast, the ESR/CRP strategy led to increased misdiagnoses when compared to CRP alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results indicate that adopting the ESR + CRP strategy would reduce misdiagnoses and overall costs to healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"578961"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12912126/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S578961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To conduct an economic analysis of the use of combined ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) and CRP (C-Reactive Protein) testing strategies compared to CRP testing alone in U.S hospitals.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of combined ESR and CRP testing compared to CRP alone. The model estimated the laboratory costs, number of misdiagnoses, and follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and clinical guidelines. Two combined testing strategies were evaluated: 1) result is positive only if both ESR and CRP results are positive (ESR + CRP) and 2) result is positive if either the ESR or CRP result is positive (ESR/CRP). Strategies were evaluated for five individual and three grouped conditions.

Results: Results demonstrated that the ESR + CRP testing strategy is a cost-effective strategy for reducing misdiagnoses and is expected to result in a net cost reduction to the healthcare system when accounting for the reduction in follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. In contrast, the ESR/CRP strategy led to increased misdiagnoses when compared to CRP alone.

Conclusion: Results indicate that adopting the ESR + CRP strategy would reduce misdiagnoses and overall costs to healthcare systems.

使用红细胞沉降率和c反应蛋白试验联合检测策略的经济评价。
目的:对美国医院使用ESR(红细胞沉降率)和CRP (c -反应蛋白)联合检测策略与单独检测CRP进行经济分析。方法:建立决策树模型,评估联合ESR和CRP检测与单独CRP相比的成本-效果和成本-收益。该模型估计了实验室费用、误诊数量以及与误诊相关的随访费用。模型输入来源于已发表的文献和临床指南。评估两种联合检测策略:1)ESR和CRP结果均为阳性(ESR + CRP), 2) ESR或CRP结果均为阳性(ESR/CRP)。评估了5个个体和3个分组条件下的策略。结果:结果表明,ESR + CRP检测策略是一种降低误诊的成本效益策略,考虑到与误诊相关的随访成本降低,预计将导致医疗保健系统的净成本降低。相反,与单独使用CRP相比,ESR/CRP策略导致误诊增加。结论:结果表明,采用ESR + CRP策略可以减少误诊和医疗保健系统的总体成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书