Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34165579›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Solar-Powered Oxygen Delivery for Pneumonia in Young Children in Low-Resource Settings.

Yiming Huang, Qaasim Mian, Nicholas Conradi, Robert O Opoka, Andrea L Conroy, Sophie Namasopo, Michael T Hawkes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Systematic review of economic evaluations for paediatric pulmonary diseases.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023
    Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Yiming HuangUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Qaasim MianUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Nicholas ConradiUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Robert O OpokaDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Mulago Hospital and Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Andrea L ConroyRyan White Center for Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Global Health, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Sophie NamasopoDepartment of Paediatrics, Kabale District Hospital, Kabale, Uganda.
Michael T HawkesUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAIndiana University School of MedicineKabale Hospital · UGMakerere University · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pneumonia is the leading cause of childhood mortality worldwide. Severe pneumonia associated with hypoxemia requires oxygen therapy; however, access remains unreliable in low- and middle-income countries. Solar-powered oxygen delivery (solar-powered O2) has been shown to be a safe and effective technology for delivering medical oxygen. Examining the cost-effectiveness of this innovation is critical for guiding implementation in low-resource settings. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of solar-powered O2 for treating children in low-resource settings with severe pneumonia who require oxygen therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: An economic evaluation study of solar-powered O2 was conducted from January 12, 2020, to February 27, 2021, in compliance with the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions That Are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) guidelines. Using existing literature, plausible ranges for component costs of solar-powered O2 were determined in order to calculate the expected total cost of implementation. The costs of implementing solar-powered O2 at a single health facility in low- and middle-income countries was analyzed for pediatric patients younger than 5 years who required supplemental oxygen. Exposures: Treatment with solar-powered O2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of solar-powered O2 was calculated as the additional cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) saved. Sensitivity of the ICER to uncertainties of input parameters was assessed through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The ICER of solar-powered O2 was estimated to be $20 (US dollars) per DALY saved (95% CI, $2.83-$206) relative to the null case (no oxygen). Costs of solar-powered O2 were alternatively quantified as $26 per patient treated and $542 per life saved. Univariate sensitivity analysis found that the ICER was most sensitive to the volume of pediatric pneumonia admissions and the case fatality rate. The ICER was insensitive to component costs of solar-powered O2 systems. In secondary analyses, solar-powered O2 was cost-effective relative to grid-powered concentrators (ICER $140 per DALY saved) and cost-saving relative to fuel generator-powered concentrators (cost saving of $7120). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this economic evaluation suggest that solar-powered O2 is a cost-effective solution for treating hypoxemia in young children in low- and middle-income countries, relative to no oxygen. Future implementation should prioritize sites with high rates of pediatric pneumonia admissions and mortality. This study provides economic support for expansion of solar-powered O2 and further assessment of its efficacy and mortality benefit.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHealth ResourcesHumansOxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyPneumoniaSolar EnergyOxygen

Identifiers

PMID34165579
PMCPMC8226423
OpenAlexW3173559968

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.