Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30772149›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2019

Compressed Influenza Vaccination in U.S. Older Adults: A Decision Analysis.

Kenneth J Smith, Glenson France, Mary Patricia Nowalk, Jonathan M Raviotta, Jay DePasse, Angela Wateska, Eunha Shim, Richard K Zimmerman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kenneth J SmithDepartment of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: smithkj2@upmc.edu.
Glenson FranceDepartment of Economics, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
Mary Patricia NowalkDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jonathan M RaviottaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jay DePassePittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Angela WateskaDepartment of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Eunha ShimDepartment of Mathematics, Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea.
Richard K ZimmermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USPittsburgh Supercomputing Center · USSoongsil University · KRUniversity of Pittsburgh at Greensburg · US

Funding

Future of influenza vaccine strategies given interference and choiceR01GM111121 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SMITH, KENNETH J, ZIMMERMAN, RICHARD K · 2014 to 2017
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM111121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTradeoffs exist between efforts to increase influenza vaccine uptake, including early season vaccination, and potential decreased vaccine effectiveness if protection wanes during influenza season. U.S. older adults increasingly receive vaccination before October. Influenza illness peaks vary from December to April.

methodsA Markov model compared influenza likelihood in older adults with (1) status quo vaccination (August-May) to maximize vaccine uptake or (2) vaccination compressed to October-May (to decrease waning vaccine effectiveness impact). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data were used for influenza incidence and vaccination parameters. Prior analyses showed that absolute vaccine effectiveness decreased by 6%-11% per month, favoring later season vaccination. However, compressed vaccination could decrease overall vaccine uptake. Influenza incidence was based on average monthly incidence with earlier and later peaks also examined. Influenza strain distributions from two seasons were modeled in separate scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result robustness. Data were collected and analyzed in 2018.

resultsCompressed vaccination would avert ≥11,400 influenza cases in older adults during a typical season if it does not decrease vaccine uptake. However, if compressed vaccination decreases vaccine uptake or there is an early season influenza peak, more influenza can result. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, compressed vaccination was never favored if it decreased absolute vaccine uptake by >5.5% in any scenario; when influenza peaked early, status quo vaccination was favored.

conclusionsCompressed vaccination could decrease waning vaccine effectiveness and decrease influenza cases in older adults. However, this positive effect is negated when early season influenza peaks occur and diminished by decreased vaccine uptake that could occur with shortening the vaccination season.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesImmunization ScheduleAgedCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.FemaleHospitalizationHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleMarkov ChainsMass VaccinationRisk AssessmentSeasonsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID30772149
PMCPMC6469716
OpenAlexW2914963312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.