SynthesisThe Indian journal of medical research2022
Economic evaluation of hepatitis A vaccines by income level of the country: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The Indian journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hepatitis A virus endemicity and vaccine policy, India.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Evolving trends in hepatitis A epidemiology: Shifting patterns, emerging risks, and future strategies.World journal of virology · 2025Review
- Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against hepatitis-A infection among individuals aged 6-30 years in India, 2021: a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- Article
- Hepatitis a Vaccine as Opportunity of Primary Prevention for Food Handlers: A Narrative Review.Vaccines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Although several reviews of economic evaluation (EE) studies on hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine exist, there remains a need to corroborate such data from time to time. This study aimed to systematically review the literature for reports on EE of HAV vaccination by type of population, characteristics of intervention and income level of the country. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched to identify relevant studies from inception up to May 2021 using topic-specific key words in various combinaiton. Full EE studies comparing HAV vaccination to no vaccine or immunoglobulin were included. The risk of bias was assessed by using the ECOBIAS checklist. Results: Among the 1984 identified studies, 43 were found eligible. Of these, 27 were from high-income countries (HICs), 15 from middle-income countries (MICs), and one from low income country. Majority of the studies used Markov model and/or decision tree (n=26). Eight studies used a dynamic model. The discount rate, perspective and time horizon varied across the studies. Universal HAV vaccination without screening was cost-effective among children (14/16, 87.5%) and adolescents (1/5, 20%) but not in adults (0/4, 0%). Analysis by the level of income found that universal HAV vaccination among children without screening was cost-effective in 81.8 per cent of the studies conducted in MICs (9/11) as compared to 66.7 per cent in HICs (4/6). About one-third of the studies conducted among children found that screening and HAV vaccination were cost-effective compared to no vaccination. Interpretation & conclusions: The finding of this review suggest that universal vaccination of children without screening was likely to be cost-effective, especially in MICs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the methodology varied across studies. Several aspects should also be considered in transferring the EE results across jurisdictions.
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.