SynthesisJournal of global health2020
Informing policy makers on the efficiency of population level tobacco control interventions in Asia: A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Informing policy makers on the efficiency of population level tobacco control interventions in Asia: A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations.Journal of global health · 2020Pooled it
- Efficiency of the healthcare system and the impact of smoking bans: a DEA analysis of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area in Asia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Four Tobacco Control Interventions in Mongolia.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Article
- Reducing the Burden of Disease Through Tobacco Taxes in Mongolia: A Health Impact Analysis Using a Dynamic Public Health Model.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEconomic evaluations of tobacco control interventions support decisions regarding resource allocation in public health policy. Our systematic review was aimed at identifying potential bias in decision models used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of population-based tobacco control interventions in Asia.
methodsWe included studies conducted in Asian countries and using a modelling technique to evaluate the economic impacts of one or more population-based tobacco interventions in line with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We assessed the structure, input parameters, and risk of bias for each model, and performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies.
resultsNine model-based economic evaluation studies of population-based tobacco interventions were identified. About 60% of the criteria for reporting quality were met in all studies, indicating that reporting generally lacked transparency. The studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of the scope, types, and structures of their models and the quality of input parameters. One-third of the models applied in the studies scored a high risk of bias, with problems mostly falling into the following categories: model type, time horizons, and smoking transition probabilities.
conclusionsMore data are needed to provide high-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of tobacco control policies in Asia. Strong evidence at the country level hinges on the availability of accurate estimates of the effects of the interventions, the relative risks of smoking, and the price elasticity of the demand for tobacco. Simple transfers of models built in Western populations do not suffice. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42019141679.
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.