Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36415803›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of public health2022

Economic Evaluation of Health Interventions: A Critical Review.

Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad, Ebrahim Jaafaripooyan, Mahmoud Zamandi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mapping the modified rankin scale (mRS) onto the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

3 authors.

Ali Mohammad MosadeghradDepartment of Health Management & Economics, Health Information Management Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ebrahim JaafaripooyanDepartment of Health Management & Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahmoud ZamandiDepartment of Health Management & Economics, Health Information Management Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Economic evaluation is used for the optimal allocation of resources in the health sector. While a large number of economic evaluation studies have been conducted, there is less critical review of these studies. We critically examined the economic evaluation studies of preventive health interventions. Methods: The study was carried out using critical review method. Seven databases (i.e., PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, and Elsevier) were searched to find articles on economic evaluation of health interventions published from 1985 to 2018. In addition, the references of retrieved studies were hand screened for articles that were not indexed in these databases. Finally, 206 articles, including 33 cost- benefit analysis, 146 cost- effectiveness analysis, and 27 cost-utility analysis were included in this study. These studies were critically evaluated using a checklist of 11 criteria. Results: Only 20% of the studies met all the methodological criteria of health economic evaluation. The cost perspective, costs type, cost data source, and cost measurement were not explained and discussed in 17%, 20%, 5%, and 33% of studies respectively. Outcome data sources and outcome valuation method were only mentioned in 53% and 69% of studies. The sensitivity analysis and results' generalizability were not reported in 16% and 46% of studies. Conclusion: The quality of economic evaluation studies is low, and it can be misleading if resource allocation decisions are made using this evidence. Authors should use valid protocols to conduct and report economic evaluation studies, and journals' editors should use valid checklists to evaluate these articles.

Indexed as

Cost-benefit analysisCost-effectiveness analysisCost-utility analysisEconomic evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36415803
PMCPMC9647621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.