ReviewHealth science reports2025
Economics of Task-Shifting in Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Top 5 Surgical Education Innovations for Low-Resource Settings Over the Last 50 years.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Economics of Task-Shifting in Surgery: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Due to the global shortage in the surgical workforce, especially in low-resource settings, one solution to increase surgical volume is to delegate certain roles of surgeons to other trained non-surgeon health workers. However, quantifying the costs and benefits of surgical task-shifting has several challenges associated with it. The purpose of this study was to conduct a critical appraisal of studies on the cost-effectiveness of task shifting in surgical care. Methods: A systematic review was done using searches on four major electronic bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Web of Science, Econlit) up to June 2021. Studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion criteria and relevant data were extracted. Results: A total of 16 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. 14 of them were done in low- and middle-income countries while the other two, in high income countries. Findings showed that task shifting to non-surgeons lowers the total cost of surgery and increases coverage without any significant difference in outcome when compared with surgeons. Conclusion: Task shifting in surgical care is considered to be cost-effective, improving the efficiency and access to surgical care in both low- and high-income countries. Methodological challenges make study findings difficult to generalize. The costs and outcome values are dependent on the choice of comparator, hospital setting, cost items, and surgical procedure included. However, there is a need for more published data in different locations to support evidence for policymaking.
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.