ArticleBMC medicine2011
Results from evaluations of models and cost-effectiveness tools to support introduction decisions for new vaccines need critical appraisal.
Article in BMC medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- National decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines: A systematic review, 2010-2020.Vaccine · 2021Pooled it
- Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.BMC medicine · 2019Guideline
- Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination against HPV in Brazil.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Pooled it
- The impact of maternal RSV vaccine to protect infants in Gavi-supported countries: Estimates from two models.Vaccine · 2020Article
- Key considerations for successful implementation of maternal immunization programs in low and middle income countries.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Review
- Best practice assessment of disease modelling for infectious disease outbreaks.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of introducing universal childhood rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Article
- Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Article
- Health and economic outcomes of introducing the new MenB vaccine (Bexsero) into the Italian routine infant immunisation programme.PloS one · 2015Article
- Evaluation of targeted mass cholera vaccination strategies in Bangladesh: a demonstration of a new cost-effectiveness calculator.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2014Article
- Enhancing the work of the Department of Health and Human Services national vaccine program in global immunization: recommendations of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee: approved by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee on September 12, 2013.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2014Article
- Modeling cholera outbreaks.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2014Review
- Economic analyses to support decisions about HPV vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a consensus report and guide for analysts.BMC medicine · 2013Article
- The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for pediatric immunization in developing countries.The Milbank quarterly · 2012Article
- Decision-making on malaria vaccine introduction: the role of cost-effectiveness analyses.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2012Article
- Comparative review of three cost-effectiveness models for rotavirus vaccines in national immunization programs; a generic approach applied to various regions in the world.BMC medicine · 2011Review
- Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--5.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes ResearchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the cost-effectiveness (CE) of introducing new vaccines be considered before such a programme is implemented. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it is often challenging to perform and interpret the results of model-based economic appraisals of vaccines that benefit from locally relevant data. As a result, WHO embarked on a series of consultations to assess economic analytical tools to support vaccine introduction decisions for pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines. The objectives of these assessments are to provide decision makers with a menu of existing CE tools for vaccines and their characteristics rather than to endorse the use of a single tool. The outcome will provide policy makers in LMICs with information about the feasibility of applying these models to inform their own decision making. We argue that if models and CE analyses are used to inform decisions, they ought to be critically appraised beforehand, including a transparent evaluation of their structure, assumptions and data sources (in isolation or in comparison to similar tools), so that decision makers can use them while being fully aware of their robustness and limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.