ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2014
Immunization rates at the school entry in 2012.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sero-epidemiological study in prediction of the risk groups for measles outbreaks in Vojvodina, Serbia.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Social clustering of unvaccinated children in schools in the Netherlands.Epidemiology and infection · 2022Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) towards vaccinations in the school settings: an explorative survey.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2017Article
- Local measles vaccination gaps in Germany and the role of vaccination providers.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Unanswered Questions.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Motivation Is Crucial for Immunization Success.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Greater Differentiation Would Have Been Desirable.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn Reply.2015
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe immunization rates for some diseases, including measles, were so low in Germany in recent years that endemic outbreaks occurred. A finely detailed geographic analysis of immunization rates is necessary for the identification of under-immunized areas.
methodsWe addressed this question with the aid of regional and local data from school entrance examinations, which were made available to us by the health departments of the German federal states. These data are represented both in tabular form and with the aid of a geographical information system (GIS).
resultsThe immunization rates for tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis were high throughout Germany (96.5%, 95.6%, and 95.2%, respectively). In contrast, major variation across regions was seen in immunization rates for hepatitis B (range: 53.5% to 99.1%) and measles (52.1% to 98.3%), with higher immunization rates in areas of the former East Germany. Low immunization rates were particularly evident in some areas in the states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. In some parts of Saxony (a state in the former East Germany), the official immunization recommendations differ from those of the nationwide Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO); as a result, these areas had a mean measles immunization rate of only 66.7% among children entering school.
conclusionHigh immunization rates were found across Germany for tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis, although the rates in some regions were lower than they should be. Stronger informational efforts must be undertaken to improve the public acceptance of immunization against hepatitis B and measles, so that these immunization rates can rise. For measles in particular, uniform nationwide recommendations might help increase the immunization rate.
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.