A systematic scoping review of published economic analyses of public cord blood banking: Is it time to reassess?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Public banking of umbilical cord blood (UCB) remains important as a source of donor cells for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Given reductions in global cord blood transplant activity, the economic value of UCB banking may be questioned. We performed a scoping review to gain a full and current understanding of economic evaluations of public UCB banking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to June 2024 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Health Technology Assessment, Econlit, Scopus, and cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL) databases. RESULTS: Our search identified 13 studies published between 1999 and 2019, predominantly from the United States and Europe. Of these, five are classified as full economic evaluations, with two employing cost-effectiveness analysis, one applying cost-utility analysis and two applying cost-benefit analysis. Key findings reveal a shift from evaluating the optimal inventory size and costs associated with establishing cord banks, to the evaluation of strategies that increase usage and reduce costs of bank operations. Only two studies considered the societal gain from transplant survivors, noting many cord blood transplant recipients are pediatric with significant gain in quality-adjusted life years that offset the high costs of operating public cord banks. Studies addressing the needs of underrepresented populations were lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the evolving landscape of public UCB banking economic evaluations. Updated full economic studies are needed to understand the current landscape given potential usage by specific sub-groups of the population, reduced global usage for HCT, and the emergence of novel uses of cord blood.
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 | 0.048 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".