SynthesisActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Vaccines are underused in pregnancy: what about knowledge, attitudes and practices of providers?
Synthesis in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Communication About Maternal Vaccination: Qualitative Findings from Non-Hispanic Black Pregnant People.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2025Article
- Article
- Tetanus Vaccination Status and Vaccine Hesitancy in Amateur Basketball Players (Italy, 2020).Vaccines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo investigate actual knowledge of official recommendations towards seasonal influenza (SID), and Tetanus-diphtheria acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in obstetrics/gynecologists (OBGYN).
methodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) among case controls, cross-sectional studies, either questionnaire or laboratory exams based. Results. A total of 6 studies met inclusion criteria, including 1323 OBGYN from 5 different countries. Overall, around 99% of sampled professionals were aware that official recommendations towards SID in pregnancy do exist, compared to 92% for Tdap, with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 95%, p < 0.001). Concerns about vaccine safety was reported by 10% of respondents for Tdap, and by 6.0% for SID, but again available studies were substantially heterogenous (I2 = 86.7% and 86.0%, p < 0.001). Eventually, 93% of respondents actively recommended SID in pregnancy, compared to 88% for Tdap (I2 98.8% and I2 95.9%, respectively p < 0.001). The evidence of significant publication bias was initially subjectively identified from the funnel plot, and then objectively confirmed through the regression test for all analyses.
conclusionsThese results suggest an appropriated understanding of official recommendation among sampled OBGYN, with high shares of professionals actively promoting vaccination practices among their patients. Despite the high heterogeneity and the significant publication bias we identified, our results also hint towards extensive knowledge gaps of OBGYN, and particularly regarding unmotivated concerns about vaccine safety. As a consequence, appropriate information and formation campaigns should be appropriately tailored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.