ArticleFrontiers in public health2021
Cost-Effectiveness of Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19 in China: A Microsimulation Modeling Study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Economic Value of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions for Influenza and COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19: A systematic review.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- The role of economic evaluation in modelling public health and social measures for pandemic policy: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Article
- Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2023Review
- Effect of Nucleic Acid Screening Measures on COVID-19 Transmission in Cities of Different Scales and Assessment of Related Testing Resource Demands-Evidence from China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Research on Monetary Policy Implementation and Industrial Structure Transformation Under COVID-19-Evidence From Eight Economic Zones in Mainland China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Survival and Estimation of Direct Medical Costs of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various public health measures in dealing with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. A stochastic agent-based model was used to simulate the progress of the COVID-19 outbreak in scenario I (imported one case) and scenario II (imported four cases) with a series of public health measures. The main outcomes included the avoided infections and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. The results indicated that isolation-and-quarantine averted the COVID-19 outbreak at the lowest ICERs. The joint strategy of personal protection and isolation-and-quarantine averted one more case than only isolation-and-quarantine with additional costs. The effectiveness of isolation-and-quarantine decreased with lowering quarantine probability and increasing delay time. The strategy that included community containment would be cost-effective when the number of imported cases was >65, or the delay time of the quarantine was more than 5 days, or the quarantine probability was below 25%, based on current assumptions. In conclusion, isolation-and-quarantine was the most cost-effective intervention. However, personal protection combined with isolation-and-quarantine was the optimal strategy for averting more cases. The community containment could be more cost-effective as the efficiency of isolation-and-quarantine drops and the imported cases increases.
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.