Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28582563›Full record

ReviewInternational health2017

Participant-centred active surveillance of adverse events following immunisation: a narrative review.

Patrick Cashman, Kristine Macartney, Gulam Khandaker, Catherine King, Michael Gold, David N Durrheim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Information systems for vaccine safety surveillance.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasonal influenza vaccine safety surveillance, Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) Network.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020
    Observational
  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.

Patrick CashmanHunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, Australia.
Kristine MacartneyNational Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
Gulam KhandakerDiscipline of Child and Adolescent Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Australia.
Catherine KingNational Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
Michael GoldUniversity of Adelaide, Discipline pf Paediatrics, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, Australia.
David N DurrheimHunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of active, participant-centred monitoring of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is increasingly recognised as a valuable adjunct to traditional passive AEFI surveillance. The databases OVID Medline and OVID Embase were searched to identify all published articles referring to AEFI. Only studies which sought participant response after vaccination were included. A total of 6060 articles published since the year 2000 were identified. After the application of screening inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 articles describing 23 post-marketing AEFI systems were identified. Most countries had a single system: Ghana, Japan, China, Korea, Netherlands, Singapore, Brazil, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Cameroon except the USA (2), Canada (4) and Australia (6). Data were collected from participants with and without AEFI in all studies reviewed with denominator data enabling AEFI rate calculations. All studies considered either a single vaccine or specified vaccines or were time limited except one Australian system, which provides continuous automated participant-centred active surveillance of all vaccines. Post-marketing surveillance systems using solicited patient feedback are emerging as a novel AEFI monitoring tool. A number of exploratory systems utilising e-technology have been developed and their potential for scaling up and application in low and middle income countries deserves further investigation.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingHumansVaccinesVaccinesAdverse eventsAEFIImmunisationPost-marketing surveillanceTechnologyVaccine safety

Identifiers

PMID28582563
PMCPMC5881255

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.