Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36360668›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Interventions to Mitigate the Monkeypox Virus.

Ali Mofleh Alshahrani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

Ali Mofleh AlshahraniDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, TU, KSA, P.O. Box 888, Haweiah 21974, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5460-3809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a viral outbreak occurs, governments are obligated to protect their citizens from the diverse adverse effects of the disease. Health policymakers often have several interventions to consider based on the health of the population, as well as the cascading social and economic consequences of the possible mitigation strategies. The current outbreak of the monkeypox virus has elicited debate on the best mitigation strategy, especially given that most world economies are still recovering from the harsh economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper sought to analyze the costs and benefits of three possible strategies and determine which option has the best health outcomes and positive economic effects. A case study of Jeddah was performed, whereby a model was simulated to determine the number of infections over 28 days based on one case of the monkeypox virus. Findings reveal that the vaccination provides the best intervention, as it effectively reduces the transmission rate and prevents loss of lives in the city. From the model, only three people were infected over the research period, while no deaths were reported. Although vaccination incurs a huge direct cost at the beginning, in the long run, it saves the economy from the disease's financial burden in terms of productivity loss from work absenteeism and premature deaths.

Indexed as

Monkeypox virusMpox, MonkeypoxCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansVaccinationbenefitcostmonkeypoxoutbreakpandemicvirus

Identifiers

PMID36360668
PMCPMC9656773
OpenAlexW4307160314

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.