Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20465314›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2010

Methodological concerns with economic evaluations of meningococcal vaccines.

Teresa L Kauf

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

1 author.

Teresa L KaufDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. tkauf@ufl.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of meningococcal vaccines illustrates nicely the incremental technological process that is common to much medical innovation and particularly appropriate to economic analysis. However, the economic evaluation of vaccines is complicated by several features unique to vaccines, including the possibility of indirect (herd immunity) benefits and the shear breadth of vaccination strategies available to decision makers. As with the vaccines themselves, the modelling approaches applied to the economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines have evolved to become increasingly complex. Despite such innovation, concerns remain about the quality of economic studies of meningococcal vaccines. This article reviews evaluations of meningococcal vaccine strategies in developed countries and provides recommendations for future work in this area. Four potentially problematic areas in the existing literature are identified - indirect costs, herd immunity, quality of life and comparison programmes - and approaches to these issues are discussed. Recommendations for reporting a 'minimum analysis profile' case are also made. Although comparisons across studies are difficult at best, recent work shows that incorporating the indirect benefits and costs of vaccination substantially improves cost effectiveness.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansImmunity, HerdMass VaccinationMeningococcal VaccinesModels, EconomicQuality of LifeMeningococcal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID20465314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.