Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33403106›Full record

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.

Ariuntuya Tuvdendorj, Yihui Du, Grigory Sidorenkov, Erik Buskens, Geertruida H de Bock, Talitha Feenstra

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cost-Effectiveness of Four Tobacco Control Interventions in Mongolia.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Article
  4. 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 · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Ariuntuya TuvdendorjUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Yihui DuUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Grigory SidorenkovUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Erik BuskensUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geertruida H de BockUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Talitha FeenstraUniversity of Groningen, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health PolicyTobacco ProductsAdministrative PersonnelAsiaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTobacco Use

Identifiers

PMID33403106
PMCPMC7750019

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.