Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31384750›Full record

ReviewVaccine: X2019

A rapid evidence appraisal of influenza vaccination in health workers: An important policy in an area of imperfect evidence.

Dawn C Jenkin, Hamid Mahgoub, Kathleen F Morales, Philipp Lambach, Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Comparison of the immunogenicity of adjuvanted and conventional egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines among healthcare personnel in Lima, Peru: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: a narrative review.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Cocoon vaccination for influenza in patients with a solid tumor: a retrospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dawn C JenkinHealth Protection and Influenza Research Group (WHO Collaborating Centre), University of Nottingham School of Medicine, United Kingdom.
Hamid MahgoubEast of England Health Protection Team, Public Health England, United Kingdom.
Kathleen F MoralesSierra Strategy Group, Evian les Baines, France.
Philipp LambachWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-TamHealth Protection and Influenza Research Group (WHO Collaborating Centre), University of Nottingham School of Medicine, United Kingdom.
University of Nottingham · GBPublic Health England · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe World Health Organization recommends vaccination of health workers (HWs) against influenza, but low uptake is intransigent.We conducted a

methodsWe executed a comprehensive search of the available literature published from 2006 to 2018 in the English language. We developed search terms for seven separate questions following the PICO framework (population, intervention, comparators, outcomes) and queried nine databases.

resultsOf 3784 publications identified, 52 met inclusion criteria. Seven addressed HW influenza risk, of which four found increased risk; 15 addressed influenza vaccine benefit to HWs or their employers, of which 10 found benefit; 11 addressed influenza transmission from HWs to patients, of which 6 found evidence for transmission; 12 unique studies addressed whether vaccinating HWs produced patient benefit, of which 9 concluded benefits accrued. Regarding the number of HWs needed to vaccinate (NNV) to deliver patient benefit, NNV estimates ranged from 3 to 36,000 but were in significant disagreement. Fourteen studies provided insights on strategies to improve uptake; the strongest evidence was for mandatory vaccination.

conclusionsThe evidence on most questions related to influenza vaccination in HWs is mixed and often of low-quality. Substantial heterogeneity exists in terms of study designs and settings, making comparison between studies difficult. Notwithstanding these limitations, a majority of studies suggests that influenza vaccination benefit HWs and their employers; and HWs are implicated in transmission events. The effects of vaccinating HWs on patient morbidity and mortality may include reductions in all-cause mortality and influenza-like illness (ILI). Taken together, the evidence suggests that HW vaccination is an important policy for HWs themselves, their employers, and their patients.

Indexed as

cRCTs, clustered randomised controlled trialsGAVI, the global alliance for vaccines and immunizationHealthcareHealth workerHW, health workersILI, influenza like illnessInfluenzaLTCF, long-term care facility(ies)NNV, number needed to vaccinateOR, odds ratioPolicyRCTs, randomised controlled trialsRR, relative riskTransmissionVaccineWHO, World Health organization

Identifiers

PMID31384750
PMCPMC6668237
OpenAlexW2961668744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.