Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31368856›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2020

Reply to "HPV vaccine requirements, opt-outs and providers' support: key studies missing from a recent systematic review".

Maria Rosaria Gualano, Gianluca Voglino, Roberta Siliquini

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maria Rosaria GualanoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Gianluca VoglinoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5516-3419
Roberta SiliquiniDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The peer-review process represents a crucial step in improving the quality of published research. Nevertheless, after it, there could be room for further improvements. In this case, concerns about the sensitivity and sensibility of the search strategy used in a recently published review were raised. With this letter we address the issues raised, being aware, as stated in the paper that "The results of the review could serve as a starting point for further studies analyzing these aspects". In light of this, the present paper could be the opportunity to start cooperation to better assess the parents' attitudes towards HPV vaccine requirements.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareVaccinationPapillomavirus VaccinesHPVmandatory vaccinationReply letterreview

Identifiers

PMID31368856
PMCPMC7012166

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.