Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The evaluation of operating Animal Bite Treatment Centers in the Philippines from a health provider perspective.

Anna Charinna B Amparo, Sarah I Jayme, Maria Concepcion R Roces, Maria Consorcia L Quizon, Ernesto E S Villalon, Beatriz P Quiambao, Mario S Baquilod, Leda M Hernandez, Louise H Taylor, Louis H Nel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Human rabies: prospects for elimination.CAB reviews : perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural resources · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna Charinna B AmparoGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Sta. Rosa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-9358-3983
Sarah I JaymeGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Sta. Rosa City, Philippines.
Maria Concepcion R RocesSouth Asia Field Epidemiology and Technology Network (SAFETYNET), Quezon City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-3047-9529
Maria Consorcia L QuizonSouth Asia Field Epidemiology and Technology Network (SAFETYNET), Quezon City, Philippines.
Ernesto E S VillalonDisease Prevention and Control Bureau, Department of Health, Manila, Philippines.
Beatriz P QuiambaoResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine, Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.
Mario S BaquilodDisease Prevention and Control Bureau, Department of Health, Manila, Philippines.
Leda M HernandezDisease Prevention and Control Bureau, Department of Health, Manila, Philippines.
Louise H TaylorGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Manhattan, New York, United States of America.
Louis H NelGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Manhattan, New York, United States of America.
Global Alliance for Rabies Control · USDepartment of Health · PHResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Philippine government has an extensive network of 513 Animal Bite Treatment Centers (ABTCs) to supply rabies post exposure prophylaxis (PEP), reaching over 1 million bite victims in 2016. The network was evaluated using a review of existing national and provincial data, key informant interviews and surveys in sample ABTCs to determine the cost-effectiveness of this network in preventing human rabies deaths. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsOne urban and one rural ABTC in each of three selected provinces were studied in more detail. PEP delivery generally followed national guidance based on best practices, but there was evidence of operational challenges in supplying all ABTCs with adequate biologics and recently trained staff. Funding was contributed by different levels of government and in some clinics, patients paid for a significant fraction of the total cost. From a health provider perspective including both fixed and variable costs, the average PEP course delivered cost USD 32.91 /patient across urban ABTCs (with higher patient throughput) and USD 57.21 /patient across rural ABTCs. These costs suggests that PEP provision in the Philippines cost USD 37.6 million in 2016, with a cost per life saved of USD 8,290. An analysis of the 2,239 suspected rabies deaths from 2008 to 2016 showed no significant decline, and from 2014-16 an average of 8,534 years of life were lost annually. The incidence of rabies deaths from 2014-16 was not clearly related to the provision of ABTCs (per 100,000 population) or human population density, but deaths were more common in higher income provinces. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In the context of comprehensive rabies control (including dog vaccination and public awareness) ways to reduce this high expenditure on PEP should be explored, to most cost-effectively reach the elimination of human rabies deaths. This paper is accompanied by another containing data on the operation of ABTCs network from a patient perspective.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnimalsBites and StingsChildChild, PreschoolCommunity Health CentersCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessDog DiseasesDogsFemaleHumansIncidenceLife ExpectancyRabies Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID30001378
PMCPMC6042697
OpenAlexW2831801564

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.