Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21943237›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2011

A multi-center, qualitative assessment of pediatrician and maternal perspectives on rotavirus vaccines and the detection of Porcine circovirus.

Daniel C Payne, Sharon Humiston, Douglas Opel, Allison Kennedy, Mary Wikswo, Kimberly Downing, Eileen J Klein, Ana Kobayashi, David Locke, Christina Albertin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparative genomic analysis of genogroup 1 (Wa-like) rotaviruses circulating in the USA, 2006-2009.Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Treatment and prevention of rotavirus infection in children.Current infectious disease reports · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel C PayneEpidemiology Branch, Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. dvp6@cdc.gov
Sharon Humiston
Douglas Opel
Allison Kennedy
Mary Wikswo
Kimberly Downing
Eileen J Klein
Ana Kobayashi
David Locke
Christina Albertin
Claudia Chesley
Mary A Staat
University of Washington · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases · USUniversity of Cincinnati · USChildren's Mercy Hospital · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2010, researchers using novel laboratory techniques found that US-licensed rotavirus vaccines contain DNA or DNA fragments from Porcine circovirus (PCV), a virus common among pigs but not believed to cause illness in humans. We sought to understand pediatricians' and mothers' perspectives on this finding.

methodsWe conducted three iterations of focus groups for pediatricians and non-vaccine hesitant mothers in Seattle, WA, Cincinnati, OH, and Rochester, NY. Focus groups explored perceptions of rotavirus disease, rotavirus vaccination, and attitudes about the detection of PCV material in rotavirus vaccines.

resultsPediatricians understood firsthand the success of rotavirus vaccines in preventing severe acute gastroenteritis among infants and young children. They measured this benefit against the theoretical risk of DNA material from PCV in rotavirus vaccines, determining overall that the PCV finding was of no clinical significance. Particularly influential was the realization that the large, randomized clinical trials that found both vaccines to be highly effective and safe were conducted with DNA material from PCV already in the vaccines.Most mothers supported the ideal of full disclosure regarding vaccination risks and benefits. However, with a scientific topic of this complexity, simplified information regarding PCV material in rotavirus vaccines seemed frightening and suspicious, and detailed information was frequently overwhelming. Mothers often remarked that if they did not understand a medical or technical topic regarding their child's health, they relied on their pediatrician's guidance.Many mothers and pediatricians were also concerned that persons who abstain from pork consumption for religious or personal reasons may have unsubstantiated fears of the PCV finding.

conclusionsPediatricians considered the detection of DNA material from PCV in rotavirus vaccines a "non-issue" and reported little hesitation in continuing to recommend the vaccines. Mothers desired transparency, but ultimately trusted their pediatrician's recommendation. Both vaccines are currently approved for their intended use, and no risk of human PCV illness has been reported. Communicating this topic to pediatricians and mothers requires sensitivity to a broad range of technical understanding and personal concerns.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRotavirus VaccinesAdultCircovirusCommunicationDrug ContaminationFemaleFocus GroupsGastroenteritisHumansMaleMothersPediatricsPhysiciansRotavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID21943237
PMCPMC3190333
OpenAlexW2084494508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.