Comment on Gomez et. al. "Response to article by Wasserman et. al. (2018) 'Modelling the sustained use of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared to switching to the 10-valent vaccine in Mexico'".

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Response to Gomez et al.'s Letter to the Editor Regarding: "Cost-Effectiveness of the 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) Versus Lower-Valent Alternatives in Filipino Infants".Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Modeling the sustained use of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared to switching to the 10-valent vaccine in Mexico.2019
• Comment on
  Response to article by Matthew Wasserman et al. (2018): "Modeling the sustained use of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared to switching to the 10-valent vaccine in Mexico".2019

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as