Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34711355›Full record

SynthesisValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2021

Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review.

Sophie Vandepitte, Tijs Alleman, Ingmar Nopens, Jan Baetens, Samuel Coenen, Delphine De Smedt

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Sophie VandepitteFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: sophie.vandepitte@ugent.be.
Tijs AllemanBIOMATH, Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ingmar NopensBIOMATH, Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jan BaetensKERMIT, Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Samuel CoenenELIZA, Centre for General Practice, Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care and VAXINFECTIO, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Delphine De SmedtFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated.

resultsA total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies' content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient.

conclusionsThe quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19Health PolicyHumanscost-effectivenessCOVID-19policy measuressystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34711355
PMCPMC8481648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.