ReviewGlobal & regional health technology assessment
A guide to critical reading of influenza vaccine cost-effectiveness analyses.
Review in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Influenza vaccines are formulated each year to prevent serious illness in at-risk individuals, including elderly people. Healthcare decision-making is mainly based on the economic evaluations (EEs) (i.e., cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA]) of vaccines; however, understanding the limitations of these models and correctly interpreting the results may be challenging. Here, we provide a practical Guide that will help readers who are not experts in the field of health economics or influenza to critically review influenza vaccine EEs. Methods: This Guide is based on the findings of a systematic review of the literature, a critical analysis of the available EEs published for influenza vaccines for older adults in Spain, and applicable national and international guidelines on EE and influenza modeling. It has been developed by a multidisciplinary board of experts in influenza, vaccines, and health economics. Results: The guide provides tips to help the reader assess whether an EE design is fit for its purpose in terms of comparators, time horizon, perspective of the analysis, population analyzed, and whether appropriate modeling methods were applied. It detects the uncertainty arising from input data and the implications of this uncertainty on the results. Conclusions: Ultimately, this resource aims to empower decision-makers, particularly those without expertise in health economics or vaccinology, to critically read and interpret EEs, thus favoring evidence-based informed decisions that will improve the efficiency of influenza vaccination programs.
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.