ReviewVaccine: X2024
The cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination program among age-groups children, adults, and elderly in Europe: A systematic review.
Review in Vaccine: X, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To prepare for future epidemics, the experiences from the vaccination programs in the COVID-19 pandemic need to be collated. This systematic review synthesizes health economic evidence of COVID-19 vaccination programs in European countries comparing the target groups children, adults, and elderly, to study whether the Swedish vaccination strategy was justified on cost-effectiveness grounds. Method: A literature search using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study design) convention was conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Tuft CEA Registry, Cochrane and INAHTA in February 2023. The inclusion criteria were economic evaluations (S) comparing COVID-19 vaccination (I) in age-groups children, adult, and elderly European residents (P) with non-vaccinated European residents (C) in terms of cost per QALY, cost differences, and net monetary benefit (O). Hand-search was done on selected websites and in reference lists of included reports. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and quality assessment with the Swedish HTA agency checklist were performed by two researchers. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Results: The database search resulted in 5,720 reports, title/abstract screening yielded 162 reports and after full-text screening, four reports remained. Two studies comparing vaccination of adults and elderly with high and moderate study quality were included. No study was found on the children population. The economic evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccination of the elderly is cost-effective when compared with vaccination of the adult group, but the transferability to Swedish circumstances was inconclusive due to differences in outcome and cost data between Sweden and the included studies' settings. Conclusion: The common European COVID-19 vaccination policy that prioritized the elderly population was the cost-effective option in the reviewed studies. The lack of transferability to Sweden precludes a clear conclusion on the Swedish vaccination policy.
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.