Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885610›Full record

ReviewInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2021

Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication.

Rosalind Hollingsworth, Clotilde El Guerche-Séblain, Theodore Tsai, Yuri Vasiliev, Sam Lee, Helen Bright, Paula Barbosa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.

Rosalind HollingsworthSanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8066-1081
Clotilde El Guerche-SéblainSanofi Pasteur, Sanofi-Aventis (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Singapore.
Theodore TsaiTakeda Vaccines, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Yuri VasilievSt. Petersburg Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Krasnoe Selo, Russian Federation.
Sam LeeSanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA, USA.
Helen BrightAstraZeneca, Liverpool, UK.
Paula BarbosaInternational Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sanofi (United States) · USAstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBResearch Institute of Vaccines and Sera. Mechnikov of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences · RUSanofi (France) · FRTakeda (United States) · USWorld Federation of Public Health Associations · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision-making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers' decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza-specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesCommunicationHumansSeasonsVaccinationInfluenza Vaccinesevaluative frameworkinfluenza communicationsSeasonal influenzavaccination effectivenessvaccination policyvaccine recommendations

Identifiers

PMID32885610
PMCPMC7767949
OpenAlexW3083513858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.