Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21312004›Full record

ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2011

Economic evaluation of human papilloma virus vaccination in the European Union: a critical review.

Daniela Koleva, Paola De Compadri, Anna Padula, Livio Garattini

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Vaccination: the cornerstone of an efficient healthcare system.Journal of market access & health policy · 2015
    Article
  5. The Economic Value of Vaccination: Why Prevention is Wealth.Journal of market access & health policy · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. To model or not to model: lessons from two vaccinations.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2011
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniela KolevaCESAV, Centre of Health Economics, Via Camozzi, 3 c/o Villa Camozzi, 24020, Ranica, Bergamo, Italy.
Paola De Compadri
Anna Padula
Livio Garattini
Nini Hospital · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine is a new and expensive vaccine potentially effective in the prevention of a cancer. We reviewed the economic evaluations (EEs) on the vaccine in the EU to assess their potential contribution to public decision-making in a fairly homogeneous setting where HPV vaccination has been widely adopted. A literature search on PubMed selected EEs on HPV vaccines in the EU for the period 2007-2010 using the terms "HPV vaccines" and "Costs and cost analysis." Fifteen articles were eventually selected. All studies were based on modelling techniques, either "cohort" or "dynamic transmission": three were cost utility, three cost-effectiveness, and the remainder included both. The ten studies explicitly assessing one of the two vaccines were all sponsored by their manufacturer, while the five studies unrelated to the vaccine type were funded by public agencies. Apart from two studies, utility estimates were always obtained from three US sources. Direct costs were always vaccination, diagnosis and treatment of related pathologies. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results were less favourable when life years gained were valued rather than quality-adjusted life years, genital warts were excluded, and booster doses and extension of vaccination to men were included in the base-case analysis. All but one of the sponsored EEs recommend in favour of the vaccination strategy, which is dominant in one English study. The ICER results were very sensitive to discount rates, followed by duration of protection and vaccine price. At such an early stage, when the vaccines' efficacy have been demonstrated by well-designed studies, it is not possible (and not even reasonable) to wait for several years to measure their effectiveness; public decision-makers might benefit more from EEs designed to indicate sustainable prices using realistic estimates of crucial variables like coverage rates, rather than referring to a large number of assumptions in order to show acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingEuropean UnionHealth Care CostsHealth PolicyHumansPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPublic HealthQuality-Adjusted Life YearsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID21312004
OpenAlexW2020799923

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.