Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27014673›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2016

Can Digital Tools Be Used for Improving Immunization Programs?

Alberto E Tozzi, Francesco Gesualdo, Angelo D'Ambrosio, Elisabetta Pandolfi, Eleonora Agricola, Pierluigi Lopalco

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Alberto E TozziUnit of Telemedicine, IRCCS, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital , Rome , Italy.
Francesco GesualdoUnit of Telemedicine, IRCCS, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital , Rome , Italy.
Angelo D'AmbrosioUnit of Telemedicine, IRCCS, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital , Rome , Italy.
Elisabetta PandolfiUnit of Telemedicine, IRCCS, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital , Rome , Italy.
Eleonora AgricolaUnit of Telemedicine, IRCCS, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital , Rome , Italy.
Pierluigi LopalcoEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control , Stockholm , Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to successfully control and eliminate vaccine-preventable infectious diseases, an appropriate vaccine coverage has to be achieved and maintained. This task requires a high level of effort as it may be compromised by a number of barriers. Public health agencies have issued specific recommendations to address these barriers and therefore improve immunization programs. In the present review, we characterize issues and challenges of immunization programs for which digital tools are a potential solution. In particular, we explore previously published research on the use of digital tools in the following vaccine-related areas: immunization registries, dose tracking, and decision support systems; vaccine-preventable diseases surveillance; surveillance of adverse events following immunizations; vaccine confidence monitoring; and delivery of information on vaccines to the public. Subsequently, we analyze the limits of the use of digital tools in such contexts and envision future possibilities and challenges.

Indexed as

communicationimmunizationimmunization programsinformation disseminationregistriesvaccinationvaccination strategiesvaccine confidence

Identifiers

PMID27014673
PMCPMC4782280

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.