Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22462695›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2012

Issues in the economic evaluation of influenza vaccination by injection of healthy working adults in the US: a review and decision analysis of ten published studies.

Thomas J Hogan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Thomas J Hoganthogan@me.com
Oldham Council · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to review recent economic evaluations of influenza vaccination by injection in the US, assess their evidence, and conclude on their collective findings. The literature was searched for economic evaluations of influenza vaccination injection in healthy working adults in the US published since 1995. Ten evaluations described in nine papers were identified. These were synopsized and their results evaluated, the basic structure of all evaluations was ascertained, and sensitivity of outcomes to changes in parameter values were explored using a decision model. Areas to improve economic evaluations were noted. Eight of nine evaluations with credible economic outcomes were favourable to vaccination, representing a statistically significant result compared with a proportion of 50% that would be expected if vaccination and no vaccination were economically equivalent. Evaluations shared a basic structure, but differed considerably with respect to cost components, assumptions, methods, and parameter estimates. Sensitivity analysis indicated that changes in parameter values within the feasible range, individually or simultaneously, could reverse economic outcomes. Given stated misgivings, the methods of estimating influenza reduction ascribed to vaccination must be researched to confirm that they produce accurate and reliable estimates. Research is also needed to improve estimates of the costs per case of influenza illness and the costs of vaccination. Based on their assumptions, the reviewed papers collectively appear to support the economic benefits of influenza vaccination of healthy adults. Yet the underlying assumptions, methods and parameter estimates themselves warrant further research to confirm they are accurate, reliable and appropriate to economic evaluation purposes.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansInfluenza VaccinesInjectionsOccupational HealthVaccinationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID22462695
OpenAlexW2051451159

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.