Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35712857›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2022

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies.

Lihui Zhou, Wenxin Yan, Shu Li, Hongxi Yang, Xinyu Zhang, Wenli Lu, Jue Liu, Yaogang Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Lihui Zhou *School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Wenxin Yan *Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Shu LiSchool of Management, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Hongxi YangSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Xinyu ZhangSchool of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Wenli LuSchool of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Jue LiuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yaogang WangSchool of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 71910107004National Natural Science Foundation of China 71934002National Natural Science Foundation of China 72122001National Natural Science Foundation of China 91746205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I Results: Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Conclusions: NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPandemics

Identifiers

PMID35712857
PMCPMC9196831

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.