Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23667334›Full record

ReviewPLoS medicine2013

Measuring coverage in MNCH: design, implementation, and interpretation challenges associated with tracking vaccination coverage using household surveys.

Felicity T Cutts, Hector S Izurieta, Dale A Rhoda

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 195 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Felicity T CuttsIndependent consultant, La Londe les Maures, France. felicity.cutts@lshtm.ac.uk
Hector S Izurieta
Dale A Rhoda
Battelle · USOldham Council · GBUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination coverage is an important public health indicator that is measured using administrative reports and/or surveys. The measurement of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys is susceptible to numerous challenges. These challenges include selection bias and information bias, which cannot be solved by increasing the sample size, and the precision of the coverage estimate, which is determined by the survey sample size and sampling method. Selection bias can result from an inaccurate sampling frame or inappropriate field procedures and, since populations likely to be missed in a vaccination coverage survey are also likely to be missed by vaccination teams, most often inflates coverage estimates. Importantly, the large multi-purpose household surveys that are often used to measure vaccination coverage have invested substantial effort to reduce selection bias. Information bias occurs when a child's vaccination status is misclassified due to mistakes on his or her vaccination record, in data transcription, in the way survey questions are presented, or in the guardian's recall of vaccination for children without a written record. There has been substantial reliance on the guardian's recall in recent surveys, and, worryingly, information bias may become more likely in the future as immunization schedules become more complex and variable. Finally, some surveys assess immunity directly using serological assays. Sero-surveys are important for assessing public health risk, but currently are unable to validate coverage estimates directly. To improve vaccination coverage estimates based on surveys, we recommend that recording tools and practices should be improved and that surveys should incorporate best practices for design, implementation, and analysis.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesChildChild Health ServicesChild, PreschoolData Interpretation, StatisticalFamily CharacteristicsGlobal HealthHealth Care SurveysHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansImmunization ScheduleInfantInfant, NewbornPatient Acceptance of Health CareProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID23667334
PMCPMC3646208
OpenAlexW2087314245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.