A review of cost–effectiveness of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palivizumab prophylaxis has been demonstrated to reduce the number of hospitalizations attributable to respiratory syncytial virus in high-risk infants. However, as palivizumab acquisition costs are high, quantifying cost-effectiveness is important. The primary aim of this review was to examine the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab across numerous indications in high-risk infants and to report on factors that may impact outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify pharmacoeconomic analyzes of palivizumab compared to no prophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus in infants and young children. A total of 28 articles met inclusion criteria and were subsequently assigned quality scores according to the Quality of Health Economic Studies criteria. Results varied according to perspective, input parameters, outcome measures, populations and base-case and sensitivity analyses. Overall, cost-effectiveness results were inconsistent. Some studies reported favorable outcomes, while others did not, or were inconclusive. Factors to consider in the interpretation of such economic evaluations are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".