ArticleVaccine: X2020
Reporting gaps in immunization costing studies: Recommendations for improving the practice.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2020. 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Costs of human papillomavirus vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Vaccine · 2024Pooled it
- Maternal vaccine delivery costs in South Asian settings: estimates from Bangladesh and Nepal.BMC public health · 2025Article
- What will introducing and delivering new maternal vaccines cost in Ghana and Mozambique? A prospective analysis.Vaccine · 2025Article
- Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics: a scoping review.Public health · 2022Article
- WHO-led consensus statement on vaccine delivery costing: process, methods, and findings.BMC medicine · 2022Review
- Economic costs of severe seasonal influenza in Colombia, 2017-2019: A multi-center analysis.PloS one · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-quality evidence on the cost of delivering vaccines is essential for policymakers, planners, and donors to ensure sufficient, equitable, predictable, and sustainable financing. However, poor practices and reporting oversights in both the published and grey literature limit the understanding and usability of cost data. This paper describes quality assessment results and quantifies problems with immunization costing study reporting practices found in 68 articles and reports included in an immunization delivery unit cost repository focused on low- and middle-income countries and launched in 2018, the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC). We recommend a standard of practice for writing up an immunization costing study, in the form of an easy to follow checklist, to increase the quality of reporting and the comparability of results. Reporting that adheres to this checklist will improve the comprehension and interpretability of evidence, increasing the likelihood that costing studies are understood and can be used for resource mobilization and allocation, planning and budgeting, and policy decisions.
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.