Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25930111›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

The burden of pertussis in low- and middle-income countries since the inception of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974: a systematic review protocol.

Rudzani Muloiwa, Benjamin M Kagina, Mark E Engel, Gregory D Hussey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Pertussis outbreak investigation in Likimsa-BokoreThe Pan African medical journal · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Rudzani MuloiwaDepartment of Paediatrics & Child Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town 7700, South Africa. Rudzani.Muloiwa@uct.ac.za.
Benjamin M KaginaVaccines for Africa Initiative, Division of Medical Microbiology & Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. bm.kagina@uct.ac.za.
Mark E EngelDepartment of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. Mark.Engel@uct.ac.za.
Gregory D HusseyVaccines for Africa Initiative, Division of Medical Microbiology & Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. Gregory.Hussey@uct.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine against pertussis has been in use for several decades. Despite the widespread use of pertussis vaccine, evidence shows resurgence of pertussis in high-income countries. Pertussis surveillance data is largely missing from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Without data on trends of pertussis, it is difficult to review and amend pertussis control policies in any country. We propose conducting a systematic review to evaluate the burden and trends of pertussis in LMICs since 1974. METHODS/

designCommon and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms for pertussis and LMICs will be used to search electronic databases for the relevant literature published between 1974 and December 2014. Only studies from LMICs that fulfils World Health Organisation (WHO) or CDC pertussis case definitions will be included. The studies must have a clear numerator and denominator in a well-defined population. Risk of bias will be evaluated by assessing all qualifying full-text articles for quality and eligibility using a modified quality score assessment tool. Standardised data extraction will be carried out after which descriptions of trends in the prevalence, incidence, as well as mortality rate and case fatality rate, will be done. Where sufficient data is available, the results will be stratified by age group, geography, location, vaccination and HIV status. DISCUSSION: The systematic review proposed by this protocol seeks to address the knowledge gap in the epidemiology of pertussis in LMICs for the first time. It is anticipated that the background epidemiological trends of pertussis in LMICs that our study will provide could be used in the planning for the control of pertussis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015015159.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesImmunization ProgramsVaccinationClinical ProtocolsGlobal HealthHumansIncomeResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicWhooping Cough

Identifiers

PMID25930111
PMCPMC4419482

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.