ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023
Systematic review of economic evaluations for paediatric pulmonary diseases.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPaediatric pulmonary diseases are the leading causes of mortality amongst children under five globally. Economic evaluations (EEs) seek to guide decision-makers on which health care interventions to adopt to reduce the paediatric pulmonary disease burden. This study aims to systematically review economic evaluations on different aspects of the inpatient management of paediatric pulmonary diseases globally.
methodsWe systematically reviewed EEs published between 2010 and 2020, with a subsequent search conducted for 2020-2022. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) and the Cochrane library. We extracted data items guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. We collected qualitative and quantitative data which we analysed in Microsoft Excel and R software.
resultsTwenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Six of the articles were cost-effectiveness analyses, six cost-utility analyses, two cost-minimisation analyses and eight cost analyses. Twelve articles were from high-income countries (HICs) and ten were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Eight articles focused on asthma, eleven on pneumonia, two on asthma and pneumonia, and one on tuberculosis.
conclusionConducting more EEs for paediatric pulmonary diseases in LMICs could allow for more evidence-based decision-making to improve paediatric health outcomes.
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.