Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28484344›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2017

Economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada: a scoping review.

Ellen R S Rafferty, Heather L Gagnon, Marwa Farag, Cheryl L Waldner

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2017. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Ellen R S RaffertySchool of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A2 Canada.
Heather L GagnonAlberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9 Canada.
Marwa FaragSchool of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A2 Canada.
Cheryl L WaldnerSchool of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A2 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to summarise and describe the evolution of published economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada, thereby outlining the current state of this expanding and meaningful research.

methodsUsing Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework we assembled relevant research from both academic and grey literature. Following abstract and full-text review we identified 60 articles to be included in the final analysis.

resultsWe found that since 1988 there has been a steady increase in the number of economic evaluations on vaccines in Canada. Many of these studies focus on the more recently licensed vaccines, such as influenza (16.7%), human papillomavirus (15.0%) and pneumococcal disease (15.0%). Since 2010 economic evaluations of vaccines have shown increased adherence to economic evaluation guidelines (OR = 4.6, CI 1.33, 18.7), suggesting there has been improvement in the consistency and transparency of these studies. However, there remains room for improvement, for instance, we found evidence that studies who stated a conflict of interest are more likely to assert the vaccine of interest was cost-effective (OR = 7.4; CI 1.04, 17.8). Furthermore, most reports use static models that do not consider herd immunity, and only a few evaluate vaccines post-implementation (ex-post) and traveller's vaccinations.

conclusionResearchers should examine identified research gaps and continue to improve standardization and transparency when reporting to ensure economic evaluations of vaccines best meet the needs of policy-makers, other researchers and the public.

Indexed as

CanadaCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationReviewScoping reviewVaccines

Identifiers

PMID28484344
PMCPMC5420143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.