Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22115361›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2012

Modelling the impact of extended vaccination strategies on the epidemiology of pertussis.

M H Rozenbaum, R De Vries, H H LE, M J Postma

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M H RozenbaumUnit of PharmacoEpidemiology and PharmacoEconomics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. m.h.rozenbaum@rug.nl
R De Vries
H H LE
M J Postma
Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Research Iberia (Spain) · ESUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the optimal pertussis booster vaccination strategy for The Netherlands. A realistic age-structured deterministic model was designed. Assuming a steady-state situation and correcting for underreporting, the model was calibrated using notification data from the period 1996-2000. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of different assumptions for parameters surrounded by uncertainty (e.g. duration of protection after natural infection, underreporting factors, and transmission probabilities). The optimal age of an additional booster dose is in the range of 10-15 years, and implementation of this booster dose will reduce both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, although the incidence of symptomatic infections in older age groups will increase. The impact of the different assumptions used in the model was in general limited. We conclude that over a wide range of assumptions, an additional booster dose can reduce the incidence of pertussis in the population.

Indexed as

Immunization ScheduleImmunization, SecondaryModels, BiologicalAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsChildChild, PreschoolHumansMiddle AgedNetherlandsPertussis VaccineVaccinationWhooping CoughYoung AdultPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID22115361
PMCPMC3404482
OpenAlexW2104229120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.