Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37443104›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2023

A systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies of interventions impacting antimicrobial resistance.

Chris Painter, Dian Faradiba, Kinanti Khansa Chavarina, Ella Nanda Sari, Yot Teerawattananon, Kristina Aluzaite, Aparna Ananthakrishnan

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chris PainterHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Dian FaradibaHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand. dian.f@hitap.net.
Kinanti Khansa ChavarinaHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Ella Nanda SariHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Kristina AluzaiteCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Aparna AnanthakrishnanHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 220211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by widespread and inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Many countries, including those in low- and middle- income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, for many interventions there is little or no economic evidence with respect to their cost-effectiveness. To help better understand the scale of this evidence gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different interventions affecting AMR.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted of economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR. a narrative synthesis of findings was produced. Systematic searches for relevant studies were performed across relevant databases and grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All identified economic evaluation studies were included provided that they reported an economic outcome and stated that the analysed intervention aimed to affect AMR or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Studies that reported clinical endpoints alone were excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. A quality assessment of the evidence used in the included studies was also conducted.

results28,597 articles were screened and 35 articles were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The review attempted to answer the following questions: (1) What interventions to address AMR have been the subject of an economic evaluation? (2) In what types of setting (e.g. high-income, low-income, regions etc.) have these economic evaluations been focused? (3) Which interventions have been estimated to be cost-effective, and has this result been replicated in other settings/contexts? (4) What economic evaluation methods or techniques have been used to evaluate these interventions? (5) What kind and quality of data has been used in conducting economic evaluations for these interventions? DISCUSSION: The review is one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review the literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions. This review addresses an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR and can assist AMR researchers' understanding of the state of the economic evaluation literature, and therefore inform future research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42020190310).

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsAMRAntibiotic resistanceCost–benefit analysisCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluation

Identifiers

PMID37443104
PMCPMC10339577

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.