ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of dengue vaccination in Indonesia.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic approaches against dengue virus: current status of vaccines, antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies.Emerging microbes & infections · 2026Review
- The cost-effectiveness of Wolbachia-based biocontrol interventions for dengue: A scoping review of the available evidence.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of chikungunya vaccination with the live attenuated vaccine in U.S. territories.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Tracking the financial flows of Indonesia's COVID-19 vaccination program.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Occupational exposure to malaria, leishmaniasis and arbovirus vectors in endemic regions: A systematic review.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the fact that the incidence and mortality rates due to dengue virus (DENV) infection in Indonesia are relatively high, dengue vaccination has not yet been introduced. This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of dengue vaccination in Indonesia by taking the potential of pre-vaccination screening into account. An age-structured decision tree model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness value by applying a single cohort of 4,710,100 children that was followed-up in a 10-year time horizon within a 1-year analytical cycle. The budget impact was analysed in a 5-year period (2020-2024) by considering provinces' readiness to introduce dengue vaccine and their incidence rate of DENV infection in the last 10 years. Vaccination that was coupled with pre-vaccination screening would reduce dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) by 188,142, 148,089 and 426 cases, respectively. It would save treatment cost at $23,433,695 and $14,091,642 from the healthcare and payer perspective, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) would be $5,733 and $5,791 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained from both perspectives. The most influential parameters affecting the ICERs were probability of DENV infection, vaccine efficacy, under-reporting factor, vaccine price, case fatality rate and screening cost. It can be concluded that dengue vaccination and pre-vaccination screening would be cost-effective to be implemented in Indonesia. Nevertheless, it seems unaffordable to be implemented since the total required cost for the nationwide vaccination would be 94.44% of routine immunization budget.
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.