Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28743299›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2017

The public health value of vaccines beyond efficacy: methods, measures and outcomes.

A Wilder-Smith, I Longini, P L Zuber, T Bärnighausen, W J Edmunds, N Dean, V Masserey Spicher, M R Benissa, B D Gessner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

9 authors.

A Wilder-SmithLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. anneliesws@gmail.com.
I LonginiUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
P L ZuberWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
T BärnighausenInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
W J EdmundsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
N DeanUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
V Masserey SpicherFederal Office of Public Health, Bern, Switzerland.
M R BenissaInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
B D GessnerAgence de Médecine Preventive (AMP), Paris, France.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessments of vaccine efficacy and safety capture only the minimum information needed for regulatory approval, rather than the full public health value of vaccines. Vaccine efficacy provides a measure of proportionate disease reduction, is usually limited to etiologically confirmed disease, and focuses on the direct protection of the vaccinated individual. Herein, we propose a broader scope of methods, measures and outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness and public health impact to be considered for evidence-informed policymaking in both pre- and post-licensure stages. DISCUSSION: Pre-licensure: Regulatory concerns dictate an individually randomised clinical trial. However, some circumstances (such as the West African Ebola epidemic) may require novel designs that could be considered valid for licensure by regulatory agencies. In addition, protocol-defined analytic plans for these studies should include clinical as well as etiologically confirmed endpoints (e.g. all cause hospitalisations, pneumonias, acute gastroenteritis and others as appropriate to the vaccine target), and should include vaccine-preventable disease incidence and 'number needed to vaccinate' as outcomes. Post-licensure: There is a central role for phase IV cluster randomised clinical trials that allows for estimation of population-level vaccine impact, including indirect, total and overall effects. Dynamic models should be prioritised over static models as the constant force of infection assumed in static models will usually underestimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the immunisation programme by underestimating indirect effects. The economic impact of vaccinations should incorporate health and non-health benefits of vaccination in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, thus allowing for estimation of the net social value of vaccination.

conclusionsThe full benefits of vaccination reach beyond direct prevention of etiologically confirmed disease and often extend across the life course of a vaccinated person, prevent outcomes in the wider community, stabilise health systems, promote health equity, and benefit local and national economies. The degree to which vaccinations provide broad public health benefits is stronger than for other preventive and curative interventions.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePublic HealthVaccinesCost-Benefit AnalysisHospitalizationHumansImmunization ProgramsVaccinesCluster randomised controlled trialDynamic modellingEffectivenessOverall effectivenessPost-licensurePre-licensurePublic health impactQuasi-experimentsVaccine efficacyVaccine-preventable disease incidence

Identifiers

PMID28743299
PMCPMC5527440

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.