Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27727285›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2016

Impact on Epidemic Measles of Vaccination Campaigns Triggered by Disease Outbreaks or Serosurveys: A Modeling Study.

Justin Lessler, C Jessica E Metcalf, Felicity T Cutts, Bryan T Grenfell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Perfect counterfactuals for epidemic simulations.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Justin LesslerDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-8109
C Jessica E MetcalfDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Felicity T CuttsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Bryan T GrenfellDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Princeton University · USJohns Hopkins University · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Scientific and Technical Computing CoreP2CHD047879 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI SALGANIK, MATTHEW J. · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine vaccination supplemented by planned campaigns occurring at 2-5 y intervals is the core of current measles control and elimination efforts. Yet, large, unexpected outbreaks still occur, even when control measures appear effective. Supplementing these activities with mass vaccination campaigns triggered when low levels of measles immunity are observed in a sample of the population (i.e., serosurveys) or incident measles cases occur may provide a way to limit the size of outbreaks. METHODS AND

findingsMeasles incidence was simulated using stochastic age-structured epidemic models in settings conducive to high or low measles incidence, roughly reflecting demographic contexts and measles vaccination coverage of four heterogeneous countries: Nepal, Niger, Yemen, and Zambia. Uncertainty in underlying vaccination rates was modeled. Scenarios with case- or serosurvey-triggered campaigns reaching 20% of the susceptible population were compared to scenarios without triggered campaigns. The best performing of the tested case-triggered campaigns prevent an average of 28,613 (95% CI 25,722-31,505) cases over 15 y in our highest incidence setting and 599 (95% CI 464-735) cases in the lowest incidence setting. Serosurvey-triggered campaigns can prevent 89,173 (95% CI, 86,768-91,577) and 744 (612-876) cases, respectively, but are triggered yearly in high-incidence settings. Triggered campaigns reduce the highest cumulative incidence seen in simulations by up to 80%. While the scenarios considered in this strategic modeling exercise are reflective of real populations, the exact quantitative interpretation of the results is limited by the simplifications in country structure, vaccination policy, and surveillance system performance. Careful investigation into the cost-effectiveness in different contexts would be essential before moving forward with implementation.

conclusionsSerologically triggered campaigns could help prevent severe epidemics in the face of epidemiological and vaccination uncertainty. Hence, small-scale serology may serve as the basis for effective adaptive public health strategies, although, in high-incidence settings, case-triggered approaches are likely more efficient.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksMass VaccinationChild, PreschoolComputer SimulationHumansIncidenceMeaslesMeasles VaccineModels, BiologicalNepalNigerSeroepidemiologic StudiesStochastic ProcessesStrategic PlanningYemenZambiaMeasles Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID27727285
PMCPMC5058560
OpenAlexW2531221562

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.