ArticleBMJ open2022
Impact and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Niger: a modelling study evaluating alternative rotavirus vaccines.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supply, demand and use of economic evidence in vaccine policymaking in Africa: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative rotavirus vaccines in Niger, using UNIVAC, a proportionate outcomes model.
settingThe study leverages global, regional and local data to inform cost-effectiveness modelling. Local data were collected as part of a clinical trial taking place in the Madarounfa district, Maradi region, Niger.
participantsThe study models impact of infants vaccination on rotavirus gastroenteritis in children under 5 years of age.
interventionsWe compared the use of ROTARIX (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium), ROTAVAC (Bharat Biotech, India) and ROTASIIL (Serum Institute, India) to no vaccination and to each other over a 10-year period starting in 2021.
resultsWe estimated that ROTARIX, ROTAVAC and ROTASIIL would each prevent 13 million cases and 20 000 deaths of children under 5 years over a 10-year period in Niger. Compared with no vaccination, the cost to avert a disability-adjusted life-year was US$146 with ROTARIX, US$107 with ROTASIIL and US$76 with ROTAVAC from the government perspective. ROTAVAC dominated ROTARIX and ROTASIIL (eg, provided similar or higher benefits at a lower cost) and had 90% chance to be cost-effective at a US$100 willingness-to-pay threshold.
conclusionsThis study can inform decision-making around rotavirus vaccination policy in Niger, demonstrating that ROTAVAC is likely the most cost-effective option. Alternative products (ROTASIIL and ROTARIX) may also be considered by decision-makers if they are priced more competitively, or if their cold chain requirements could bring additional economic benefits.
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.