Economic Analysis of Children’s Surgical Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the economic value of health interventions is essential for policy makers to make informed resource allocation decisions. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize available information on the economic impact of children's surgical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase, and Web of Science for relevant articles published between Jan. 1996 and Jan. 2015. We summarized reported cost information for individual interventions by country, including all costs, disability weights, health outcome measurements (most commonly disability-adjusted life years [DALYs] averted) and cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs). We calculated median CER as well as societal economic benefits (using a human capital approach) by procedure group across all studies. The methodological quality of each article was assessed using the Drummond checklist and the overall quality of evidence was summarized using a scale adapted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. FINDINGS: We identified 86 articles that met inclusion criteria, spanning 36 groups of surgical interventions. The procedure group with the lowest median CER was inguinal hernia repair ($15/DALY). The procedure group with the highest median societal economic benefit was neurosurgical procedures ($58,977). We found a wide range of study quality, with only 35% of studies having a Drummond score ≥ 7. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that many areas of children's surgical care are extremely cost-effective in LMICs, provide substantial societal benefits, and are an appropriate target for enhanced investment. Several areas, including inguinal hernia repair, trichiasis surgery, cleft lip and palate repair, circumcision, congenital heart surgery and orthopedic procedures, should be considered "Essential Pediatric Surgical Procedures" as they offer considerable economic value. However, there are major gaps in existing research quality and methodology which limit our current understanding of the economic value of surgical care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".