ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2019
A one stop shop for cost-effectiveness evidence? Recommendations for improving Disease Control Priorities.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of cancer interventions in Rwanda: literature review and expert elicitation for health benefits package design.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- An Integrated Cost Model Based on Real Patient Flow: Exploring Surgical Hospitalization.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Economic evaluations of maternal health interventions: a scoping review.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Palliative care and catastrophic costs in Malawi after a diagnosis of advanced cancer: a prospective cohort study.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Article
- Contextualization of cost-effectiveness evidence from literature for 382 health interventions for the Ethiopian essential health services package revision.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- Article
- What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds?Gates open research · 2020Article
- Priority Setting on the Path to UHC: Time for Stronger Institutions and Stronger Health Systems: Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Setting out a health benefits package (HBP) of interventions to be prioritised for funding is an important step towards achieving universal health coverage in low and middle income countries. The 3rd version of the Disease Control Priorities (DCP3) database, and other similar databases, aim to establishing a single point of reference ("one stop shop") for cost effectiveness evidence to inform HBP design and other policy making. We reflect upon our experiences in using DCP3 for HBP design and offer suggestions for improving the future reporting of cost-effectiveness evidence. We appraise DCP3 based on generalisability, level of detail, and accessibility. We find that DCP and similar initiatives should be commended for the systematic assessment of a vast array of cost-effectiveness studies-the magnitude of such an endeavour is impressive in its own right. However, there are flaws. In future, providing disaggregated estimates of costs and effects, quantifying uncertainty, and systematically assessing the context in which estimates apply would make this evidence more useful for decision makers.
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.