ArticleVaccine2019
Review of the economic evidence presented to the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2012-2016.
Article in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Data Needs for Economic Evaluations of Screening in Pediatric Primary Care: A Research Framework.Pediatrics · 2021Review
- A review of the cost-effectiveness of adult influenza vaccination and other preventive services.Preventive medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We identified 16 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentations from 2012 to 2016 that indicated 'cost' or 'economic' content. Characteristics were reviewed, abstracted, and tabulated to quantify and assess the transparency and consistency of economic evidence presented to ACIP. To assess transparency, we documented if each study identified author affiliation, conflicts of interest, study limitations, a clearly described model structure and other model attributes. To assess consistency, we identified the frequency of specific modeling choices, including the perspective, types of health outcomes considered, inclusion of specific types of costs, discount rate, and use of sensitivity analyses. Our results indicate that the content in these presentations appear to be transparent overall and consistent in several important areas, such as study perspective and health outcomes. However, we find the inclusion of particular types of direct costs, indirect costs, program costs, and sensitivity analyses are areas that could improve consistency.
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.