Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28355231›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

A systematic review of economic evaluations of population-based sodium reduction interventions.

Silvia F Hope, Jacqui Webster, Kathy Trieu, Arti Pillay, Merina Ieremia, Colin Bell, Wendy Snowdon, Bruce Neal, Marj Moodie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Silvia F HopeDeakin Health Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia.
Kathy TrieuThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia.
Arti PillayPacific Research Centre for Prevention of Obesity and Non Communicable Diseases (C-POND)/ Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.
Merina IeremiaMinistry of Health, Apia, Samoa.
Colin BellGlobal Obesity Centre, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Wendy SnowdonGlobal Obesity Centre, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bruce NealThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia.
Marj MoodieDeakin Health Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarise evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of population-based interventions targeting sodium reduction.

methodsA systematic search of published and grey literature databases and websites was conducted using specified key words. Characteristics of identified economic evaluations were recorded, and included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

resultsTwenty studies met the study inclusion criteria and received a full paper review. Fourteen studies were identified as full economic evaluations in that they included both costs and benefits associated with an intervention measured against a comparator. Most studies were modelling exercises based on scenarios for achieving salt reduction and assumed effects on health outcomes. All 14 studies concluded that their specified intervention(s) targeting reductions in population sodium consumption were cost-effective, and in the majority of cases, were cost saving. Just over half the studies (8/14) were assessed as being of 'excellent' reporting quality, five studies fell into the 'very good' quality category and one into the 'good' category. All of the identified evaluations were based on modelling, whereby inputs for all the key parameters including the effect size were either drawn from published datasets, existing literature or based on expert advice.

conclusionDespite a clear increase in evaluations of salt reduction programs in recent years, this review identified relatively few economic evaluations of population salt reduction interventions. None of the studies were based on actual implementation of intervention(s) and the associated collection of new empirical data. The studies universally showed that population-based salt reduction strategies are likely to be cost effective or cost saving. However, given the reliance on modelling, there is a need for the effectiveness of new interventions to be evaluated in the field using strong study designs and parallel economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, StatisticalCardiovascular DiseasesEconomics, MedicalHumansPreventive Health ServicesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSodium, DietarySodium, Dietary

Identifiers

PMID28355231
PMCPMC5371286

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.