Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pulse Oximetry Screening in the Full-Term Neonates for Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Context: Congenital heart defect (CHD) is a leading cause of mortality by birth defects with significant social and economic burden. Pulse oximetry as a safe and non-invasive screening method, and recently its potential for early detection of CHD improved neonatal health outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review economic evaluation studies that compared pulse oximetry with current programs to diagnose early detection of CHD in full-term newborns. Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and related articles published from 1995 up to March 2020 were searched in different databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, NHS EED, Science Citation Index, MagIran, Cochrane Library, EconLit and SID). The articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the papers. Overall, 7 articles were included in the study. Results: Timely diagnosis was considered as main effectiveness health outcome in most studies. The highest and lowest values of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (in two-phase studies) were €139,000 and $100 per infant in the Netherlands and Colombia respectively; and (in one-phase studies) were £24,000 and £1,489 per infant both belonging to the UK. Implementing pulse oximetry method concurrent with the clinical examination is more cost-effective. The reviewed studies had been conducted in high-income and upper middle-income countries; therefore, when the results are generalizing by policy makers in different health systems, a substantial precaution approach is needed.

Economic evaluation of vaccination against COVID‐19: A systematic review

“…In this study, required data was determined using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) criteria. 26 In this systematic review, Scopus, Medline/PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase (Excerpta Medica Database) is a biomedical and pharmacological database produced by Elsevier databases were searched to identify articles related to the economic evaluation of Covid‐19 vaccine. All published studies up to March 2022 were included.…”