ArticleBMC health services research2022
Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive preventive measures for coal workers' pneumoconiosis in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of particle size and moisture on respirable coal dust generation in pakistan's informal bituminous mines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Global, regional, and national trends in the incidence of pneumoconiosis among populations aged 20 and above from 1990 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Deep Learning Models of Multi-Scale Lesion Perception Attention Networks for Diagnosis and Staging of Pneumoconiosis: A Comparative Study with Radiologists.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP) remains one of the most severe occupational diseases in China. Despite the implementation of CWP comprehensive preventive measures, the unreasonable allocation of investment by coal enterprises limits the effect of preventing CWP, especially when the health resources are inadequate. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive measures for CWP from the perspective of coal enterprises.
methodsComprehensive measures and two primary interventions (engineering controls and individual protective equipment) were selected. A time-dependent Markov model was developed to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The input data were collected from the survey and literature. A hypothetical null situation, in which the currently implemented interventions were eliminated, was used as a comparator based on the generalised cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). The primary outcomes of the model were reported in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was verified using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe QALYs of the comprehensive measures, engineering controls, and individual protective equipment were 17.60, 17.50, and 16.85 years, respectively. Compared with null, the ICERs of the interventions were 65,044.73, 30,865.15, and 86,952.41 RMB/QALY, respectively. Individual protective equipment was dominated by an ICER of -11,416.02 RMB/QALY compared to engineering controls. Sensitivity analysis suggested the robustness of the results.
conclusionsThe comprehensive preventive measures for CWP that are currently implemented in Chinese state-owned mines are cost-effective. In comprehensive measures, engineering controls are more cost-effective than individual protective equipment. Investment in engineering controls should be increased to improve the cost-effectiveness of preventing CWP.
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.