Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28602604›Full record

ReviewVaccine2017

An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability.

Nicholas Luter, Ritu Kumar, Dai Hozumi, Tina Lorenson, Shannon Larsen, Bhavya Gowda, Amie Batson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Nicholas LuterPATH, PO Box 900922, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: nluter@path.org.
Ritu Kumar
Dai HozumiManagement Sciences for Health, 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203, USA.
Tina LorensonBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PO Box 23350, Seattle, WA 98102, USA.
Shannon LarsenBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PO Box 23350, Seattle, WA 98102, USA.
Bhavya GowdaPATH, PO Box 900922, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
Amie BatsonPATH, PO Box 900922, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1997, Milstien, Batson, and Meaney published "A Systematic Method for Evaluating the Potential Viability of Local Vaccine Producers." The paper identified characteristics of successful vaccine manufacturers and developed a viability framework to evaluate their performance. This paper revisits the original study after two decades to determine the ability of the framework to predict manufacturer success. By reconstructing much of the original dataset and conducting in-depth interviews, the authors developed informed views on the continued viability of manufacturers in low- and middle-income country markets. Considering the marked changes in the market and technology landscape since 1997, the authors find the viability framework to be predictive and a useful lens through which to evaluate manufacturer success or failure. Of particular interest is how incumbent and potentially new developing-country vaccine manufacturers enter and sustain production in competitive international markets and how they integrate (or fail to integrate) new technology into the production process. Ultimately, most manufacturers will need to meet global quality standards to be viable. As governments and donors consider investments in vaccine producers, the updated viability factors will be a useful tool in evaluating the prospects of manufacturers over the mid to long term. The paper emphasizes that while up-front investments are important, other critical factors-including investments in a national regulatory authority, manufacturer independence, and ability to adapt and adopt new technology-are necessary to ensure viability.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesDrug IndustryInvestmentsPlants, MedicinalHumansVaccinesVaccinesDeveloping-countryManufacturer viabilityVaccine production

Identifiers

PMID28602604
PMCPMC5593149

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.