SynthesisPloS one2023
Systematic review of economic evaluations of varicella vaccination programmes.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Varicella-zoster virus seroprevalence among reproductive-age women in Iran: a meta-analysis and implications for targeted immunization.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Estimating the Long-Term Clinical and Economic Impact of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Portugal Using a Dynamic Transmission Model.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Modeling the clinical and economic impact of universal varicella vaccination in Belgium with dynamic population.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Burden of chickenpox complications in Poland, 2006 to 2021: A comprehensive registry-based study.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study carried out a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of varicella vaccination programmes from the earliest publication to the present day, including programmes in the workplace and in special risk groups as well as universal childhood vaccination and catch up programmes.
methodsArticles published from 1985 until 2022 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, NHSEED and Econlit. Eligible economic evaluations, which included posters and conference abstracts, were identified by two reviewers who scrutinised each other's selections at both title and abstract and full report stages. The studies are described in terms of their methodological characteristics. Their results are aggregated by type of vaccination programme and the nature of the economic outcome.
resultsA total of 2575 articles were identified of which 79 qualified as economic evaluations. A total of 55 studies focused on universal childhood vaccination, 10 on the workplace and 14 on high risk groups. Twenty-seven studies reported estimates of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, 16 reported benefit-cost ratios, 20 reported cost-effectiveness outcomes in terms of incremental cost per event or life saved and 16 reported cost-cost offset results. Most studies of universal childhood vaccination reported an increase in overall costs to health services, but often a reduction in cost from a societal perspective.
conclusionsThe evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of varicella vaccination programmes remains sparse with contrasting conclusions in some areas. Future research should particularly aim to encompass the impact of universal childhood vaccination programmes on herpes zoster among adults.
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.