Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30785894›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Cost of illness and program of dengue: A systematic review.

Luana Nice da Silva Oliveira, Alexander Itria, Erika Coutinho Lima

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Dengue.Lancet (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  12. Cost of illness studies in COVID-19: a scoping review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. GeoHealth · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Luana Nice da Silva OliveiraFaculty of Pharmacy, Center for Economics and Health Assessments, Institute of Health Technology Assessment, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6257-6019
Alexander ItriaInstitute of Tropical Pathology and Public Health, Department of Collective Health, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil.
Erika Coutinho LimaFaculty of Pharmacy, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies on dengue related to the cost of illness and cost of the program are factors to describe the economic burden of dengue, a neglected disease that has global importance in public health. These studies are often used by health managers in optimizing financial resources. A systematic review of studies estimating the cost of dengue was carried out, comparing the costs between the studies and examining the cost drivers regarding the methodological choices.

methodsThis study was done according to the guidelines of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Several databases were searched: Medline, Virtual Health Library and CRD. Two researchers, working independently, selected the studies and extracted the data. The quality of the methodology of the individual studies was achieved by a checklist of 29 items based on protocols proposed by the British Medical Journal and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. A qualitative and quantitative narrative synthesis was performed.

resultsA literature search yielded 665 publications. Of these, 22 studies are in accordance with previously established inclusion criteria. The cost estimates were compared amongst the studies, highlighting the study design, included population and comparators used (study methodology). The component costs included in the economic evaluation were based on direct and indirect costs, wherein twelve studies included both costs, twelve studies adopted the societal perspective and ten studies used the perspective of the public health service provider, or of a private budget holder.

conclusionThis study showed that the cost of dengue in 18 countries generated approximately US$ 3.3 billion Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in 2015. This confirms that the burden of dengue has a great economic impact on countries with common socioeconomic characteristics and similarities in health systems, particularly developing countries, indicating a need for further studies in these countries.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessDengueHumansPublic HealthPublic Health Practice

Identifiers

PMID30785894
PMCPMC6382265

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.