Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28673259›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of N95 respirators and medical masks to protect healthcare workers in China from respiratory infections.

Shohini Mukerji, C Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale, Quanyi Wang, Peng Yang, Xiaoli Wang, Anthony T Newall

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Masks or N95 Respirators During COVID-19 Pandemic-Which One Should I Wear?Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shohini MukerjiSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. s.mukerji@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3719-3358
C Raina MacIntyreSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Holly SealeSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Quanyi WangThe Beijing Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Peng YangThe Beijing Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Xiaoli WangThe Beijing Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Anthony T NewallSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control · CNUNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are substantial differences between the costs of medical masks and N95 respirators. Cost-effectiveness analysis is required to assist decision-makers evaluating alternative healthcare worker (HCW) mask/respirator strategies. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks for protecting HCWs in Beijing, China.

methodsWe developed a cost-effectiveness analysis model utilising efficacy and resource use data from two cluster randomised clinical trials assessing various mask/respirator strategies conducted in HCWs in Level 2 and 3 Beijing hospitals for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 influenza seasons. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per clinical respiratory illness (CRI) case prevented. We used a societal perspective which included intervention costs, the healthcare costs of CRI in HCWs and absenteeism costs.

resultsThe incremental cost to prevent a CRI case with continuous use of N95 respirators when compared to medical masks ranged from US $490-$1230 (approx. 3000-7600 RMB). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the CRI attack rate and intervention effectiveness had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsThe determination of cost-effectiveness for mask/respirator strategies will depend on the willingness to pay to prevent a CRI case in a HCW, which will vary between countries. In the case of a highly pathogenic pandemic, respirator use in HCWs would likely be a cost-effective intervention.

Indexed as

ChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PersonnelHumansInfluenza, HumanMasksModels, EconomicPandemicsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Protective DevicesRespiratory Tract InfectionsVentilators, MechanicalCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationHealthcare workerMaskN95 respirator

Identifiers

PMID28673259
PMCPMC5496227
OpenAlexW2730572002

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.