Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19229328›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2009

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent disability in leprosy: a systematic review.

Natasja H J van Veen, Paul McNamee, Jan Hendrik Richardus, W Cairns S Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neglected tropical diseases and disability-what is the link?Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Natasja H J van VeenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands. n.vanveen@erasmusmc.nl
Paul McNamee
Jan Hendrik Richardus
W Cairns S Smith
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1Chief Scientist Office HERU2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevention of disability (POD) is one of the key objectives of leprosy programmes. Recently, coverage and access have been identified as the priority issues in POD. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of POD interventions is highly relevant to understanding the barriers and opportunities to achieving universal coverage and access with limited resources. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the quality of existing cost-effectiveness evidence and discuss implications for future research and strategies to prevent disability in leprosy and other disabling conditions. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe searched electronic databases (NHS EED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS) and databases of ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/, www.who.int/trialsearch). We checked reference lists and contacted experts for further relevant studies. We included studies that reported both cost and effectiveness outcomes of two or more alternative interventions to prevent disability in leprosy. We assessed the quality of the identified studies using a standard checklist for critical appraisal of economic evaluations of health care programmes. We found 66 citations to potentially relevant studies and three met our criteria. Two were randomised controlled trials (footwear, management of neuritis) and one was a generic model-based study (cost per DALY). Generally, the studies were small in size, reported inadequately all relevant costs, uncertainties in estimates, and issues of concern and were based on limited data sources. No cost-effectiveness data on self-care, which is a key strategy in POD, was found. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence for cost-effectiveness of POD interventions for leprosy is scarce. High quality research is needed to identify POD interventions that offer value for money where resources are very scarce, and to develop strategies aimed at available, affordable and sustainable quality POD services for leprosy. The findings are relevant for other chronically disabling conditions, such as lymphatic filariasis, Buruli ulcer and diabetes in developing countries.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, BibliographicLeprosyPreventive Health Services

Identifiers

PMID19229328
PMCPMC2639641
OpenAlexW1995146466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.