ArticleBMC public health2016
Epidemiology of pertussis in two Ibero-American countries with different vaccination policies: lessons derived from different surveillance systems.
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The data used to build the models: Pertussis morbidity and mortality burden considering various Brazilian data sources.Vaccine · 2021Article
- Alarm Thresholds for Pertussis Outbreaks in Iran: National Data Analysis.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2020Article
- Assessing the Importance of Domestic Vaccine Manufacturing Centers: An Overview of Immunization Programs, Vaccine Manufacture, and Distribution.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPertussis is a re-emerging disease worldwide despite its high vaccination coverage. European and Latin-American countries have used different surveillance and vaccination policies against pertussis. We compared the epidemiology of this disease in two Ibero-American countries with different vaccination and surveillance policies.
methodsWe compared the epidemiology of pertussis in Spain and the Dominican Republic (DR). We present a 10-year observational study of reported pertussis based on suspected and/or probable cases of pertussis identified by the national mandatory reporting system in both countries between 2005 and 2014. Both countries have a similar case definition for pertussis surveillance, although Spain applies laboratory testing, and uses real time PCR and/or culture for case confirmation while in DR only probable and/or suspected cases are reported. We analyzed incidence, hospitalization, case-fatality rates, mortality and vaccination coverage.
resultsThe average annual incidence in children aged <1 year was 3.40/100,000 population in Spain and 12.15/100,000 in DR (p = 0.01). While the incidence in DR was generally higher than in Spain, in 2011 it was six times higher in Spain than in DR. The highest infant mortality in Spain was 0.017/100,000 in 2011, and the highest in DR was 0.08/100,000 in 2014 (p = 0.01). The proportion of hospitalized cases per year among children <1 year varied between 22.0% and 93.7% in Spain, and between 1.1% and 29.4% in DR (p = 0.0002), while mortality varied from 0 to 0.017 and 0 to 0.08 per 100,000 population in Spain and DR, respectively (p = 0.001). Vaccination coverage was 96.5% in Spain and 82.2% in DR (p = 0.001).
conclusionsPertussis is a public health problem in both countries. Surveillance, prevention and control measures should be improved, especially in DR. Current vaccination programs are not sufficient for preventing continued pertussis transmission, even in Spain which has high vaccination coverage.
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.