Evidence mapPaperPMID 34931297Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2022

A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation Studies of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa.

Mouaddh Abdulmalik Nagi, Pramitha Esha Nirmala Dewi, Montarat Thavorncharoensap, Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Mouaddh Abdulmalik NagiDoctor of Philosophy Program in Social, Economic, and Administrative Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. muadh.ye@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4976-0978
Pramitha Esha Nirmala DewiDoctor of Philosophy Program in Social, Economic, and Administrative Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5384-3595
Montarat ThavorncharoensapSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Excellence Research (SAPER) Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8256-2167
Sermsiri SangroongruangsriSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5222-8694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDue to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

methodsPubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

resultsThe search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region.

conclusionsThe quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingDelivery of Health CareAfrica, NorthernCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTurkey

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.