Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28854349›Full record

ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)

Ranking States on Coverage of Cancer-Preventing Vaccines Among Adolescents: The Influence of Imprecision.

Anne R Waldrop, Jennifer L Moss, Benmei Liu, Li Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Area-Level Variation and Human Papillomavirus Vaccination among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Anne R Waldrop1 The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Jennifer L Moss2 Cancer Prevention Fellow Program, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Benmei Liu3 Statistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Li Zhu3 Statistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIdentifying the best and worst states for coverage of cancer-preventing vaccines (hepatitis B [HepB] and human papillomavirus [HPV]) may guide public health officials in developing programs, such as promotion campaigns. However, acknowledging the imprecision of coverage and ranks is important for avoiding overinterpretation. The objective of this study was to examine states' vaccination coverage and ranks, as well as the imprecision of these estimates, to inform public health decision making.

methodsWe used data on coverage of HepB and HPV vaccines among adolescents aged 13-17 from the 2011-2015 National Immunization Survey-Teen (n = 103 729 from 50 US states and Washington, DC). We calculated coverage, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and ranks for vaccination coverage in each state, and we generated simultaneous 95% CIs for ranks using a Monte Carlo method with 100 000 simulations.

resultsAcross years, HepB vaccination coverage was 92.2% (95% CI, 91.8%-92.5%; states' range, 84.3% in West Virginia to 97.0% in Connecticut). HPV vaccination coverage was 57.4% (95% CI, 56.6%-58.2%; range, 41.8% in Kansas to 78.0% in Rhode Island) for girls and 31.0% (95% CI, 30.3%-31.8%; range, 19.0% in Utah to 59.3% in Rhode Island) for boys. States with the highest and lowest ranks generally had narrow 95% CIs; for example, Rhode Island was ranked first (95% CI, 1-1) and Kansas was ranked 51st (95% CI, 49-51) for girls' HPV vaccination. However, states with intermediate ranks had wider and more imprecise 95% CIs; for example, New York was 26th for girls' HPV vaccination coverage, but its 95% CI included ranks 18-35.

conclusionsStates' ranks of coverage of cancer-preventing vaccines were imprecise, especially for states in the middle of the range; thus, performance rankings presented without measures of imprecision could be overinterpreted. However, ranks can highlight high-performing and low-performing states to target for further research and vaccination promotion programming.

Indexed as

AdolescentData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHepatitis B VaccinesHumansMalePapillomavirus VaccinesSex DistributionUnited StatesHepatitis B VaccinesPapillomavirus Vaccinesadolescent healthcancer preventionhepatitis B (HepB) vaccinationhuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinationstate health policy

Identifiers

PMID28854349
PMCPMC5692154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.