You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Correction
  • Open Access

Correction to: Cost-effectiveness analysis of rotavirus vaccination in China: Projected possibility of scale-up from the current domestic option

  • 1,
  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
BMC Infectious Diseases201818:487

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3370-8

  • Received: 30 August 2018
  • Accepted: 30 August 2018
  • Published:

The original article was published in BMC Infectious Diseases 2016 16:677

Correction

After the publication of our article [1] we have been made aware of a number of mislabelling and reporting errors, which were introduced in the preparation of the manuscript. The conclusions are not affected by these errors and thus remain unchanged.

The corrections required are as follows

Correction 1

In the Methods section under the heading “Vaccine effectiveness”, the sentence:

“The protection effectiveness of Rotarix and Rotateq were derived from randomized controlled trials in other Asian regions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, considering the ethnic homogeneity [25], because there was no eligible data specifically for the Chinese population.”

has been corrected to:

“The protection effectiveness of Rotarix and Rotateq were derived from randomized controlled trials [25] and clinical reviews cited by economic evaluation studies in other Asian regions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, due to no eligible data specifically for the Chinese population.”

Correction 2

In the Results section under the heading “Health impacts and cost-effectiveness of vaccination”, the sentence:

“The total cost is even less than non-vaccination.”

has been corrected to:

“The ACER is even less than non-vaccination.”

Correction 3

Four corrections are required to Table 1 as follows:

Rotateq efficacy: the plausible range for sensitivity analysis “0 - 0.98” has been corrected to “0.883 - 1”; Source “38” has been corrected to “38, 42”.

“Mortality rate” under the heading “Parameters” has been removed as it appeared twice in the Table.

Costs for international vaccinations: the plausible range for sensitivity analysis “5 - 250” has been corrected to “50 - 250”

Infection rate: Source: “34” has been corrected to “21, 45”.

A corrected version of Table 1 appears below.
Table 1

 

Baseline

Plausible range for sensitivity analysis

Sources

Parameters

 Discount rate

0.03

0

0.03

[31]

 Vaccine coverage

25.3%

10%

28.6%

[36, 37]

 Mortality rate

0.0058%

0.000029

0.000039

[41]

 Rotateq efficacy

98%

0.883

1

[38, 42]

 Rotateq infected

0.018%

0

0.00018

[42]

 hospitalization1a

44%

0

0.44

[22]

 Outpatient1 a

28%

0

0.28

[22]

 Home-care1 a

28%

0

0.28

[22]

 Rotarix infected

0.1%

0

0.001

[26]

 LLR infected

0.9%

0

0.009

[41]

 hospitalization3c

0.2%

0

0.002

[2]

 Outpatient3 c

7.9%

0

0.079

[2]

 home-care3 c

91.9%

0

0.919

[2]

 Rotarix efficacy

96.1%

0.871

1

[25, 26]

 LLR efficacy

72%

0.63

0.79

[27]

 Infection rate

78.85%

0

0.7885

[21, 45]

 home-care2b

32%

0

0.32

[22]

 hospitalization2 b

33%

0

0.33

[22]

 Outpatient2 b

35%

0

0.35

[22]

 natural protact1d

77%

0

0.77

[23]

 natural protact2 d

83%

0

0.83

[23]

Costs

 International vaccinations

200.00

50

250

[16, 17]

 LLR vaccination

24

  

The national tariff

 Hospitalizations

570.04

0

570.04

[43]

 Outpatient

104.19

0

104.19

[43]

 Home-care

11.52

0

11.52

[44]

Health Effects

 QALY(Hospitalization)

0.077

0.075

0.078

[30]

 QALY(Outpatient)

0.081

0

0.081

[30]

 QALY(Home-care)

0.082

0

0.082

[30]

Correction 4

The values presented in Table 2 were mislabelled and incorrectly shown. The correct version of Table 2 is shown below.
Table 2

Costs, health impacts and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines with comparison to no intervention

Strategy Name

Cost

QALYs

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($/QALY)

No vaccine

2379.945

17.71296

(−)

LLR vaccine

2507.851

22.65899

0

Rotarix vaccination

5982.187

24.31454

2105.66

Rotateq vaccination

5577.902

24.44506

1715.14

Correction 5

The axes in Figure 2 were mislabelled. The correct version of Figure 2 is shown below.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines at the baseline

Correction 6

The following reference should be included in the reference list:

45. Wu J, Yao Y, Hao W. Clinical Epidemiological Study on 244 Cases of Neonatal Rotavirus Infection. Chin J Nosocomiol, 1999, 9(4): 228–29 (in Chinese).

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan, China
(2)
Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Okura 2-10-1, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan

Reference

  1. Cui S, Tobe RG, Mo X, Liu X, Xu L, Li S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rotavirus vaccination in China: projected possibility of scale-up from the current domestic option. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):677.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement