Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22664066›Full record

ReviewEpidemics2012

Optimal but unequitable prophylactic distribution of vaccine.

Matt J Keeling, Andrew Shattock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Blockchain Powered Vaccine Efficacy for Pharma Sector.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Incentivizing hospital infection control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Dose-Optimal Vaccine Allocation over Multiple Populations.Production and operations management · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Reactive vaccination in the presence of disease hotspots.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2015
    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

2 authors.

Matt J KeelingMathematics Institute & School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. M.J.Keeling@warwick.ac.uk
Andrew Shattock

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701256
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The final epidemic size (R(∞)) remains one of the fundamental outcomes of an epidemic, and measures the total number of individuals infected during a "free-fall" epidemic when no additional control action is taken. As such, it provides an idealised measure for optimising control policies before an epidemic arises. Although the generality of formulae for calculating the final epidemic size have been discussed previously, we offer an alternative probabilistic argument and then use this formula to consider the optimal deployment of vaccine in spatially segregated populations that minimises the total number of cases. We show that for a limited stockpile of vaccine, the optimal policy is often to immunise one population to the exclusion of others. However, as greater realism is included, this extreme and arguably unethical policy, is replaced by an optimal strategy where vaccine supply is more evenly spatially distributed.

Indexed as

ChemopreventionEpidemicsHealth Care RationingHealth Services AccessibilityHumansModels, BiologicalProbabilityVaccinationVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID22664066
PMCPMC3381229

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.