Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39919135›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Health-economic evaluation of the outpatient, inpatient, and public health sector in Germany: Insights from the first three COVID-19 waves.

Afschin Gandjour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

1 author.

Afschin GandjourFrankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4262-8344

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study is to quantify the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the outpatient and inpatient sectors (specifically intensive care units, ICUs) and local health departments in managing the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

methodsThe analysis is based on a modelling approach using secondary data. The effectiveness of each sector was measured by determining the reduction in the case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19 patients by May 7, 2021. A counterfactual scenario assuming the absence of each sector was used to quantify their effectiveness. Direct medical costs for each sector were calculated from a statutory health insurance perspective, utilizing reimbursement rates for both the inpatient and outpatient sectors. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined, representing the costs per death avoided.

resultsThe ICUs achieved the greatest reduction in the CFR of COVID-19 patients during the first three waves (1.9%). The outpatient sector followed with a reduction of 1.4%, and the local health departments contributed to a 0.3% decrease in the CFR. In terms of spending, ICUs had the highest expenditures among the sectors, resulting in an ICER of €59,055 per death avoided. On the other hand, local health departments were costlier but less effective than the outpatient sector. Results remained consistent across various input assumptions.

conclusionDuring the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, the inpatient sector (ICUs) made the largest contribution to preventing deaths while also incurring the highest costs.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public HealthCost-Benefit AnalysisGermanyHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansInpatientsIntensive Care UnitsOutpatientsPandemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39919135
PMCPMC11805348

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.