Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38355468›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2024

Optimal resource allocation model for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yu-Yuan Wang, Wei-Wen Zhang, Ze-Xi Lu, Jia-Lin Sun, Ming-Xia Jing

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Yu-Yuan WangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832003, PR China.
Wei-Wen ZhangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832003, PR China.
Ze-Xi LuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832003, PR China.
Jia-Lin SunDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832003, PR China. gwsunjialin@163.com.
Ming-Xia JingDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832003, PR China. Mingxajing163@163.cm.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA lack of health resources is a common problem after the outbreak of infectious diseases, and resource optimization is an important means to solve the lack of prevention and control capacity caused by resource constraints. This study systematically evaluated the similarities and differences in the application of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) resource allocation models and analyzed the effects of different optimal resource allocations on epidemic control.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted of CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBD, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase for articles published from January 1, 2019, through November 23, 2023. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies, extracted and cross-checked the data. Moreover, publication bias and sensitivity analysis were evaluated.

resultsA total of 22 articles were included for systematic review; in the application of optimal allocation models, 59.09% of the studies used propagation dynamics models to simulate the allocation of various resources, and some scholars also used mathematical optimization functions (36.36%) and machine learning algorithms (31.82%) to solve the problem of resource allocation; the results of the systematic review show that differential equation modeling was more considered when testing resources optimization, the optimization function or machine learning algorithm were mostly used to optimize the bed resources; the meta-analysis results showed that the epidemic trend was obviously effectively controlled through the optimal allocation of resources, and the average control efficiency was 0.38(95%CI 0.25-0.51); Subgroup analysis revealed that the average control efficiency from high to low was health specialists 0.48(95%CI 0.37-0.59), vaccines 0.47(95%CI 0.11-0.82), testing 0.38(95%CI 0.19-0.57), personal protective equipment (PPE) 0.38(95%CI 0.06-0.70), beds 0.34(95%CI 0.14-0.53), medicines and equipment for treatment 0.32(95%CI 0.12-0.51); Funnel plots and Egger's test showed no publication bias, and sensitivity analysis suggested robust results.

conclusionWhen the data are insufficient and the simulation time is short, the researchers mostly use the constructor for research; When the data are relatively sufficient and the simulation time is long, researchers choose differential equations or machine learning algorithms for research. In addition, our study showed that control efficiency is an important indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of epidemic prevention and control. Through the optimization of medical staff and vaccine allocation, greater prevention and control effects can be achieved.

Indexed as

COVID-19Resource AllocationSARS-CoV-2AlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningCOVID-19EfficiencyMeta-analysisModelResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID38355468
PMCPMC10865525

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.