ArticleThe Lancet. Haematology2025
Cost-effective targets for anaemia reduction in 191 countries: a modelling study.
Article in The Lancet. Haematology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnaemia causes widespread health and economic harm. Current international targets for reducing anaemia in women of reproductive age, including the Sustainable Development Goal of halving prevalence by 2030, are unlikely to be met by any signatory country. This outcome suggests that current targets were grounded in aspiration rather than a systematic assessment of what is achievable given current recommended interventions and national health-care priorities. We propose a novel method of target setting for global health goals, with reducing anaemia in women of reproductive age as an example.
methodsIn this modelling study, we developed a country-level health economic model to support feasible and ambitious target-setting for anaemia for women of reproductive age (aged 15-49 years) based on cost-effectiveness analysis and applied it to 191 signatory countries. Our model integrated country-specific data on the current prevalence of anaemia, the effectiveness and current and maximal coverage of recommended interventions available to each country, the local unit costs of these interventions, and country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold estimates, including Global Burden of Disease data and data from the Demographic and Health Survey Program. Interventions were applied to maximise health gains subject to country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds at 1 × gross domestic product per capita. We assessed parameter uncertainty through Monte Carlo simulations and scenarios that considered alternative thresholds, constraints on cost, and coverage.
findingsOur results indicate that an ambitious, achievable, and cost-effective global target for anaemia reduction in women aged 15-49 years by 2030 is 17% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 5-34). The maximum achievable target removing all cost constraints is a 22% (11-36) reduction. No scenario approached the current 50% global Sustainable Development Goal reduction target, indicating that this goal is unachievable with existing recommended interventions. Reduction targets for individual countries ranged from 0% to 29%, with substantial variation both between and within regions and income groups.
interpretationOur findings suggest that a value-based global target for anaemia reduction will be substantially lower than the existing international commitment. Value-based targets using evidence from available interventions and cost-effectiveness for what is achievable given countries' differing contexts can provide better incentives for progress and offer more realistic forecasts of human development.
fundingGates Foundation.
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.