ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2014
Effects of a pharmacy-driven perisplenectomy vaccination program on vaccination rates and adherence to guidelines.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention to improve immunization coverage in splenectomy patients].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2019Article
- Vaccination coverage and mortality after splenectomy: results from an Italian single-centre study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Opportunities for pharmacists to recommend and administer routine vaccines.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOverwhelming postsplenectomy infection is a serious potential outcome for patients who have undergone resection of the spleen and is associated with a high mortality rate. The most common bacterial causes are the encapsulated organisms Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Hemophilus influenzae type B, all of which are vaccine-preventable. Current guidelines recommend vaccination against these 3 bacteria, but adherence to these guidelines is less than ideal. In 2007, a "perisplenectomy vaccination kit" was introduced at the authors' institution to improve compliance with immunization guidelines by making the vaccines and necessary information for patients and providers more readily available.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare vaccination rates for patients who underwent splenectomy before and after introduction of the perisplenectomy vaccination kit and, secondarily, to identify any characteristics unique to those who did not receive appropriate perisplenectomy vaccinations.
methodsIn this observational study, performed at the QEII Health Sciences Centre of Capital Health in Halifax, Nova Scotia, data were reviewed for patients who underwent splenectomy between 2008 and 2011. Vaccination rates and other descriptive statistics were calculated and compared with data for a 3-year period before implementation of the program.
resultsVaccination rates in the 3-year period following implementation of the perisplenectomy vaccination kit were 100% against S. pneumoniae, 97% against N. meningitidis, and 93% against H. influenzae type B. The corresponding rates in the 3 years before introduction of the kit were 91%, 75%, and 68%, respectively. No characteristics predicting inadequate immunization were identified in univariate or multivariate analysis.
conclusionIntroduction of a pharmacy-driven perisplenectomy vaccination kit program improved rates of appropriate vaccination for patients who underwent splenectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.