ReviewHealth economics review2026
Economic evaluation of national immunization program vaccines in China: a systematic review.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to systematically review the published economic evaluations of vaccines included in China’s National Immunization Program (NIP), synthesise the current evidence base, and assess their cost-effectiveness.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, CSTJ, and Wanfang Data for cost-benefit analyses (CBA), cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), and cost-utility analyses (CUA) related to NIP vaccines in China, from database inception to 14 July 2025. Studies were screened following the PRISMA guidelines. The study’s reporting quality was assessed using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, while methodological quality was evaluated using the QHES instrument.
resultsA total of 41 studies were included and demonstrated an overall moderate methodological quality (mean CHEERS score: 66.42; mean QHES score: 70.63). The included studies covered a range of NIP-targeted vaccines, including hepatitis B, measles, tuberculosis, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal vaccines, with hepatitis B receiving the greatest research focus (n = 32). Most evaluations were conducted from a societal or healthcare system perspective. The majority of studies reported benefit-cost ratios (BCR) greater than 1 or incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) below the per capita GDP threshold, indicating substantial economic value. Despite variations in model structures, baseline parameters, and assumptions, all studies consistently concluded that NIP vaccines are cost-effective compared with no vaccination. Hepatitis B vaccination, particularly when combined with maternal transmission prevention strategies, demonstrated exceptionally high net benefits at both national and subnational levels.
conclusionNIP vaccines in China offer substantial economic value; however, interpretation of the findings may be influenced by methodological heterogeneity and the use of GDP per capita-based cost-effectiveness thresholds, and the adoption of standardised evaluation methods is essential to support policy optimisation and sustainability.
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.