Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25973215›Full record

ReviewJRSM open2015

The UK immunisation schedule: changes to vaccine policy and practice in 2013/14.

Christina J Atchison, Sondus Hassounah

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JRSM open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

2 authors.

Christina J AtchisonDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK.
Sondus HassounahWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Education and Training, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination programmes are implemented either as new vaccines become available or evidence about them accumulates, or in response to specific situations. In the United Kingdom, development and implementation of the national immunisation programme is centrally coordinated and funded by the Department of Health on behalf of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A number of significant changes were made to the UK immunisation schedule for 2013/2014. Three new vaccines were introduced: intranasal influenza and oral rotavirus for children and subcutaneous shingles for older adults. To ensure protection against meningococcal C infection into adulthood, there has been a change to the schedule for meningitis C vaccination. The temporary pertussis vaccination programme for pregnant women, set up in response to an increase in the number of cases of pertussis particularly among young babies, has been extended until further notice. Furthermore, in response to large outbreaks of measles in south Wales and other parts of the UK, a national measles, mumps and rubella catch-up campaign specifically targeted at unvaccinated children aged 10-16 years was launched to ensure that all children and young people have received two doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. This review describes the rationale behind these policy changes.

Indexed as

immunisationinfluenzameaslesmeningococcal Cmumpspertussisrotavirusrubellashinglesvaccination

Identifiers

PMID25973215
PMCPMC4429042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.