Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32911130›Full record

SynthesisAccident; analysis and prevention2020

Systematic review of unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations 2010-2019 and comparison to 1998-2009.

Mallika Mahalingam, Cora Peterson, Gwen Bergen

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Accident; analysis and prevention, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Analysis of the Correlation between Occupational Accidents and Economic Factors in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mallika MahalingamNational Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA, 30341, United States. Electronic address: mallika.mahalingam@cdc.hhs.gov.
Cora PetersonNational Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA, 30341, United States.
Gwen BergenNational Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA, 30341, United States.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth economic evaluation studies (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) can provide insight into which injury prevention interventions maximize available resources to improve health outcomes. A previous systematic review summarized 48 unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations published during 1998-2009, providing a valuable overview of that evidence for researchers and decisionmakers. The aim of this study was to summarize the content and quality of recent (2010-2019) economic evaluations of unintentional injury prevention interventions and compare to the previous publication period (1998-2009).

methodsPeer-reviewed English-language journal articles describing public health unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations published January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 were identified using index terms in multiple databases. Injury causes, interventions, study methods, and results were summarized. Reporting on key methods elements (e.g., economic perspective, time horizon, discounting, currency year, etc.) was assessed. Reporting quality was compared between the recent and previous publication periods.

resultsSixty-eight recent economic evaluation studies were assessed. Consistent with the systematic review on this topic for the previous publication period, falls and motor vehicle traffic injury prevention were the most common study subjects. Just half of studies from the recent publication period reported all key methods elements, although this represents an improvement compared to the previous publication period (25 %).

conclusionMost economic evaluations of unintentional injury prevention interventions address just two injury causes. Better adherence to health economic evaluation reporting standards may enhance comparability across studies and increase the likelihood that this type of evidence is included in decision-making related to unintentional injury prevention.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisSafety ManagementWounds and InjuriesAccidental FallsAccidents, TrafficHumansAccident preventionAccidents/prevention and controlCost-benefit analysisPoisoning/prevention and controlWounds and Injuries/prevention and control

Identifiers

PMID32911130
PMCPMC7554223
OpenAlexW3084251237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.