Hildreth S W, Beaty B J
J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Jun;25(6):976-81. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.6.976-981.1987.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the surveillance of arboviruses was conducted. The EIA was compared with conventional virus isolation and serologic identification procedures (virus isolation procedures; VIP). Under most circumstances, EIA was more cost-effective than VIP. Costs for processing mosquito pools by VIP increased with the number of viruses included in the surveillance program and with the prevalence rate of each virus. In contrast to VIP, the prevalence rate did not affect costs for processing pools by EIA. In general, EIA was the most cost-effective procedure, followed by cell culture and mouse bioassays. In a 5-year cost-effectiveness analysis of a model surveillance program in which EIA and cell culture bioassays were used, the EIA again proved to be the most cost-effective assay procedure under most circumstances.
开展了一项用于虫媒病毒监测的酶免疫测定(EIA)的成本效益分析。将EIA与传统病毒分离和血清学鉴定程序(病毒分离程序;VIP)进行了比较。在大多数情况下,EIA比VIP更具成本效益。通过VIP处理蚊群的成本随着监测计划中包含的病毒数量以及每种病毒的流行率而增加。与VIP不同,流行率不影响通过EIA处理蚊群的成本。总体而言,EIA是最具成本效益的程序,其次是细胞培养和小鼠生物测定。在一项使用EIA和细胞培养生物测定的模型监测计划的5年成本效益分析中,EIA在大多数情况下再次被证明是最具成本效益的测定程序。