Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22809450›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2012

The state of health economic research in South Africa: a systematic review.

Paul Gavaza, Karen L Rascati, Abiola O Oladapo, Star Khoza

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pharmacoeconomics in Africa: needs, prospect and challenges.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul GavazaAppalachian College of Pharmacy, Oakwood, VA 24631, USA. pgavaza@gmail.com
Karen L Rascati
Abiola O Oladapo
Star Khoza
The University of Texas at Austin · USAppalachian College of Pharmacy · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic factors are a limiting factor toward the implementation of many health programmes and interventions. Economic evaluation has a great potential to contribute toward cost-effective healthcare delivery in South Africa. Little is known about the characteristics and quality of health economic (including pharmacoeconomic) research in South Africa. OBJECTIVE AND

methodsThis study assessed the state of health economic (including pharmacoeconomic) research in South Africa. PUBMED, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EconLit and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify health economic articles pertaining to South Africa published between 1 January 1977 and 30 April 2010. The searches used the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words alone and in combination: 'costs', 'health' and 'South Africa'. Our study included only original economic studies/analyses that pertained to South Africa, addressed a health-related topic, and had a statement or word in the title, abstract or keywords that indicated that an economic (including cost) analysis had been conducted. The study only included complete peer-reviewed publications (e.g. abstracts were excluded) that were reported in the English language. Two reviewers independently scored each article in the final sample using the data collection form designed for the study.

resultsIn total, 108 studies investigating a wide variety of diseases were included in the study. These articles were published in 39 different journals mostly based outside of South Africa between 1977 and 2010. On average, each article was written by three authors. Most first authors had medical/clinical training and resided in South Africa at the time of publication of their study. Based on a 1-10 scale, with 10 indicating the highest quality, the mean quality score for all studies was 7.59 (SD 1.42) and half of the articles were of good quality (score 8-10) The quality of studies was related to the country in which the journal publishing the article was based (outside South Africa = higher); current residence of the primary author (outside South Africa = higher); method of economic analysis (economic evaluations higher than cost studies); type of data used (secondary higher than primary); primary training of the first author (health economics/pharmacoeconomics = higher); type of medical function (diagnosis = higher); study perspective (societal = higher); primary health intervention (pharmaceuticals = higher); study design (modelling = higher); number of authors (more = higher); and year of publication (more recent = higher) [p ≤ 0.05].

conclusionHalf of the articles were of poor or fair quality. Measures are needed to promote the commissioning of more and better quality health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies in South Africa.

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalBiomedical ResearchCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesignSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID22809450
OpenAlexW1580034870

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.