ReviewJournal of market access & health policy2017
3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
Review in Journal of market access & health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proposed Conceptual and Experience-Based Framework for Reaching an Optimal Vaccine Launch Strategy.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Vaccine Development, Its Implementation and Price Setting: A Historical Perspective with Proposed Ways to Move Forward.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- The Knowledge and Application of Economics in Healthcare in a High-Income Country Today: The Case of Belgium.Journal of market access & health policy · 2024Article
- A Review of Major Patents on Potential Malaria Vaccine Targets.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Discounting health gain: a different view.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Article
- Using Health Economics to Inform Immunization Policy Across All Levels of Government.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Article
- Recent Progress on the Versatility of Virus-Like Particles.Vaccines · 2020Review
- How to assess for the full economic value of vaccines? From past to present, drawing lessons for the future.Journal of market access & health policy · 2020Review
- Transmission-Blocking Vaccines for Malaria: Time to Talk about Vaccine Introduction.Trends in parasitology · 2019Review
- Sustainable vaccine development: a vaccine manufacturer's perspective.Current opinion in immunology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In two previous papers we argued on current vaccines economic assessment not fully comprehensive when using the incremental cost-utility analysis normally applied for treatments. Many differences exist between vaccines and drug treatments making vaccines economic evaluation more cumbersome. Four challenges overwhelmingly present in vaccines assessment are less important for treatments: requirements for population, societal perspectives, budget impact evaluation, and time focused objectives (control or elimination). Based on this, economic analysis of vaccines may need to be presented to many different stakeholders with various evaluation preferences, in addition to the current stakeholders involved for drugs treatment assessment. Then, we may need a tool making the inventory of the different vaccines health economic assessment programmes more comprehensive. The cauliflower value toolbox has been developed with that aim, and its use is illustrated here with rotavirus vaccine. Given the broader perspectives for vaccine assessment, it provides better value and cost evaluations. Cost-benefit analysis may be the preferred economic assessment method when considering substitution from treatment to active medical prevention. Other economic evaluation methods can be selected (i.e. optimisation modelling, return on investment) when project prioritisation is the main focus considered and when stakeholders would like to influence the development of the healthcare programme.
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.