ArticleBMJ open2014
Ecological assessment of the direct and indirect effects of routine rotavirus vaccination in Merseyside, UK using data from multiple health systems: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- School Attendance Registers for the Syndromic Surveillance of Infectious Intestinal Disease in UK Children: Protocol for a Retrospective Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Reduction in hospitalisations for acute gastroenteritis-associated childhood seizures since introduction of rotavirus vaccination: a time-series and change-point analysis of hospital admissions in England.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRotavirus is the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in infants and young children worldwide. Currently 67 countries include rotavirus vaccine in childhood immunisation programmes, but uptake in Western Europe has been slow. In July 2013, rotavirus vaccine was introduced into the UK's routine childhood immunisation programme. Prior to vaccine introduction in the UK, rotavirus was estimated to result in 750,000 diarrhoea episodes and 80,000 general practice (GP) consultations each year, together with 45% and 20% of hospital admissions and emergency department attendances for acute gastroenteritis, in children under 5 years of age. This paper describes a protocol for an ecological study that will assess rotavirus vaccine impact in the UK, to inform rotavirus immunisation policy in the UK and in other Western European countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Merseyside, UK, we will conduct an ecological study using a 'before and after' approach to examine changes in gastroenteritis and rotavirus incidence following the introduction of rotavirus vaccination. Data will be collected on mortality, hospital admissions, nosocomial infection, emergency department attendances, GP consultations and community health consultations to capture all healthcare providers in the region. We will assess both the direct and indirect effects of the vaccine on the study population. Comparisons of outcome indicator rates will be made in relation to vaccine uptake and socioeconomic status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee, South Central-Berkshire REC Reference: 14/SC/1140. Study outputs will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications. The study will demonstrate the impact of rotavirus vaccination on the burden of disease from a complete health system perspective. It will identify key areas that require improved data collection tools to maximise the usefulness of this surveillance approach and will provide a template for vaccine evaluations using ecological methods in the UK.
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.