Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41369658›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2025

Economic value of international missions and domestic initiatives to strengthen surgical care in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review.

Martilord Ifeanyichi, Yannis Reissis, Rebecca Hakim, Maeve Bognini, Meskerem Kebede, Rachel Hargest, Rocco Friebel

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Martilord IfeanyichiGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0611-6795
Yannis ReissisGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Rebecca HakimGlobal Anaesthesia, Surgery, and Obstetric Collaboration (GASOC), Newcastle, UK.
Maeve BogniniGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Meskerem KebedeGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-7427-0897
Rachel HargestGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9830-3832
Rocco FriebelGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), domestic investments to strengthen surgical services compete with services delivered by international missions. While addressing the high burden of unmet surgical need is a priority, there remains limited evidence on the comparative economic value of different delivery options to guide investment decisions.

methodsFour databases and grey literature were searched for publications in any language from January 2013 to January 2023. Eligible studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit of international missions and domestic initiatives used for scale up of surgical care. Average cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each intervention and then converted to 2022 international dollars (I$). Findings were synthesized narratively.

resultsA total of 32 studies were identified (17 studies evaluated domestic surgical system strengthening programmes, 14 studies assessed international missions, and 1 study directly compared a domestic surgical development initiative against international missions). Financial protection schemes, investments in physical infrastructure, surgical residency training, and local missions were cost-effective, as were most of the international missions, compared with status quo or no intervention. However, when compared head-to-head, the unit costs per disability-adjusted life-year averted of domestic initiatives were significantly lower relative to the international missions-mean (standard deviation) I$27 051 (I$65 360) and median (interquartile range) I$498 (I$602) versus mean (standard deviation) I$515 500 (I$1 528 716) and median (interquartile range) I$5068 (I$31 618). The difference was statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: z = 2.412; P = 0.016).

conclusionInvestments in domestic surgical system strengthening efforts provide better value for money than international missions and should be prioritized over international missions.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesMedical MissionsSurgical Procedures, OperativeCost-Benefit AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID41369658
PMCPMC12690695

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.