Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16266655›Full record

ReviewAtencion primaria2005

[Flu vaccination in primary care: analysis of the process and proposals for increasing coverage].

H Schwarz Chávarri, J L Ortuño López, A Lattur Vílchez, V Pedrera Carbonell, D Orozco Beltrán, V Gil Guillén

Open access · greenAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

H Schwarz ChávarriUnidad de Calidad y Formación, Dirección Atención Primaria Area 18 Comunidad Valenciana, Alicante, Spain.
J L Ortuño López
A Lattur Vílchez
V Pedrera Carbonell
D Orozco Beltrán
V Gil Guillén
Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx · ESComunidad de Madrid · ESDepartamento de Salud · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFlu vaccination (FV) in elderly patients at risk is linked to a 50%-60% reduction in hospital admissions and up to an 80% drop in deaths from complications arising from the illness. Equally clear benefits have been found for other risk groups, such as patients with chronic cardiovascular or respiratory diseases. The vaccine is cost-effective for both the elderly and other risk groups. Despite this, vaccination rates are low, even among health staff.

objectivesTo update our knowledge of FV by means of a review of the bibliography and to describe a series of interventions that have proved successful in increasing vaccination rates. PROGRAMME: To discover procedures, the following factors were analysed: the environment, patients and health professionals that condition vaccination, the characteristics of the health-care organisation for the vaccination campaign, and the clinical organisation of risk groups required. DISCUSSION: After this analysis, certain communicated strategies that manage to increase vaccination coverage and others that could be introduced into primary care were discussed. We conclude that, given the clinical evidence available and the ease of introducing certain other interventions, improvement of flu vaccination procedures and increased vaccine coverage of patients at risk is not only advisable, but is an ethical imperative. Improvements that are within the possibilities of every primary care clinic could be introduced.

Indexed as

AgedHumansImmunization ProgramsInfluenza, HumanMiddle AgedSpainVaccination

Identifiers

PMID16266655
PMCPMC7668925
OpenAlexW2072901070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.