SynthesisJournal of global health2025
Cost-effectiveness of preventive COVID-19 interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative economic evaluation studies based on real-world data.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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: There is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness and utility of various preventive interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various COVID-19 preventive interventions, including non-medical interventions (NMIs) and vaccination programs, using real-world data across different demographic and socioeconomic contexts worldwide. Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from December 2019 to March 2024. We identified 75 studies which compared 34 COVID-19 preventive interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the incremental net benefits (INB) of these interventions from both societal and health care system perspectives. We adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) and standardised willingness to pay (WTP) to enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness across different economic levels. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses to examine the robustness of the results. Results: Movement restrictions and expanding testing emerged as the most cost-effective strategies from a societal perspective, with WTP-standardised INB values of USD 21 050 and USD 11 144. In contrast, combinations of NMIs with vaccination were less cost-effective, particularly in high-income regions. From a health care system perspective, vaccination plus distancing and test, trace, and isolate strategy were highly cost-effective, while masking requirements were less economically viable. The effectiveness of interventions varied significantly across different economic contexts, underlining the necessity for region-specific strategies. Conclusions: In this study, we highlight significant variations in the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 preventive interventions. Tailoring strategies to specific regional economic and infrastructural conditions is crucial. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of these strategies are essential for effective management of ongoing and future public health threats. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42023385169.
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.