SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Economic evaluation of hepatitis B screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHepatitis B virus (HBV) causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with intermediate to high endemicity. Screening interventions are essential for reducing infection rates.
aimTo synthesize economic evaluation evidence of hepatitis B (HBV) screening strategies in LMICs.
methodA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to August 08, 2024. All types of economic evaluations comparing HBV screening strategies in LMICs were included. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) extended checklists. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023472855).
resultsTwenty-four studies were included, with 11 focusing on pregnant women, 7 on adults, and others on children or infants. Most studies were from Asia, primarily China, using model-based analyses and a provider cost perspective. Regarding antenatal screening, adding tenofovir prophylaxis for HBsAg-positive pregnant women was more cost-effective than intervention solely targeting infants. In adults, a combination of screening and treating eligible cases or immunizing non-infected individuals was more cost-effective than no screening, particularly among young adults aged 21 to 39. Notably, expanding HBV screening to the general population was more cost-effective than limiting screening to high-risk groups. In children, screening plus re-vaccination of infants or 10-year-olds born to HBV-infected mothers was cost-effective compared to no re-vaccination.
conclusionOverall, more comprehensive interventions were generally cost-effective across all populations. The most cost-effective strategies included tenofovir prophylaxis for HBV-infected pregnant women, screening with treatment and/or vaccination in adults, and screening combined with re-vaccination in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40982118What 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.