SynthesisInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Consideration of intersectoral costs and benefits in health economic evaluations of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review explores which intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs) are considered in the economic evaluation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) across different age groups and the related impacts on the results of economic evaluations.
methodsSeven databases were searched from 2009 to 2024 for full economic evaluations (Ees) of PCVs from a societal perspective. ICBs were presented narratively and in tabular form. Studies were appraised on quality, and PRISMA guidelines were followed.
resultsIn all, 57 studies were included. ICBs were captured in the following sectors: patient and family, paid labor (productivity), nonpaid productivity, other sectors (education, leisure, consumption), unspecified sectors for ecological effects (herd immunity, serotype replacement, cross-protection), and equity. In cases where the comparator was no vaccination, 10 studies reported that PCVs were dominant when ICBs were included. After excluding dominant analyses, the median QALY-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reduction ranged from -3.25 percent (for patient/family costs and productivity loss) to -46.02 percent (in children with ecological effects). Among DALY-based studies, the inclusion of ecological effects reduced the median ICER by -22.97 percent. In head-to-head comparisons, 16 studies reported that PCVs were dominant when ICBs were included.
conclusionInclusion of ICBs, except for serotype replacement, showed favorable cost-effectiveness results. This study provides a framework for identifying the intersectoral costs and benefits for the health economic evaluation of PCVs in children and adults.
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.