ArticleFrontiers in health services2024
Cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration for control of scabies in Ethiopia: a decision-analytic model.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic impact of a large-scale scabies upsurge on healthcare facilities in Rohingya refugee camps: A retrospective costing study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Controlling recurrent scabies outbreaks in a geriatric hospital: impact of a prevention bundle and lessons from a breakthrough case.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Addressing scabies among street children in Ethiopia: an ethnographic study of acceptable interventions by prospective recipients and deliverers.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The strategies to control scabies in highly endemic populations include individual case/household management and mass drug administration (MDA). We used a decision-analytic model to compare ivermectin-based MDA and individual case/household management (referred to as "usual care") for control of scabies in Ethiopia at different prevalence thresholds for commencing MDA. Methods: A decision-analytic model was based on a repeated population survey conducted in Northern Ethiopia in 2018-2020, which aimed to evaluate the secondary impact of single-dose ivermectin MDA for the control of onchocerciasis on scabies prevalence. The model estimates the number of scabies cases and costs of two treatment strategies (MDA and usual care) based on their effectiveness, population size, scabies prevalence, compliance with MDA, medication cost, and other parameters. Results: In the base-case analysis with a population of 100,000 and scabies prevalence of 15%, the MDA strategy was both more effective and less costly than usual care. The probability of MDA being cost-effective at the current cost-effectiveness threshold (equivalent to the cost of usual care) was 85%. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the MDA strategy remained dominant (less costly and more effective) in 22 out of 26 scenarios. MDA was not cost-effective at scabies prevalence <10%, MDA effectiveness <85% and population size <5,000. An increase in the cost of ivermectin from 0 (donated) to 0.54 US$/dose resulted in a decrease in the probability of MDA being cost-effective from 85% to 17%. At 0.25 US$/dose, the MDA strategy was no longer cost-effective. Conclusions: The model provides robust estimates of the costs and outcomes of MDA and usual care and can be used by decision-makers for planning and implementing scabies control programmes. Results of our analysis suggest that single-dose ivermectin MDA is cost-effective in scabies control and can be initiated at a scabies prevalence >10%.
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.