Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239338›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

SMART Vaccines 2.0 decision-support platform: a tool to facilitate and promote priority setting for sustainable vaccination in resource-limited settings.

Benjamin J J McCormick, Peter Waiswa, Celia Nalwadda, Nelson K Sewankambo, Stacey L Knobler

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Benjamin J J McCormickDivision of International Epidemiology and Population Studies, Fogarty International Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Peter WaiswaSchool of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Celia NalwaddaUganda National Academy of Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Nelson K SewankamboUganda National Academy of Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Stacey L KnoblerDivision of International Epidemiology and Population Studies, Fogarty International Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA stacey.knobler@sabin.org.ORCID 0000-0002-3801-231X
Fogarty International Center · USKarolinska Institutet · SEMakerere University · UGSabin Vaccine Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In resource-constrained environments, priority setting is critical to making sustainable decisions for introducing new and underused vaccines and choosing among vaccine products. Donor organisations and national governments in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) recognise the need to support prioritisation of vaccine decisions driven by local health system capacity, epidemiology and financial sustainability.Successful efforts have supported the establishment of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) to undertake evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) in LMICs. Now, attention is increasingly focused on supporting their function to leverage local expertise and priorities. EIDM and priority-setting functions are complex and dynamic processes. Here, we report a pilot of a web-based decision-support tool. Applying tenets of multicriteria decision analysis, SMART Vaccines 2.0 supported transparent, reproducible and evidence-informed priority setting with an easy-to-use interface and shareable outputs.The pilot was run by the Uganda NITAG who were requested by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2016 to produce recommendations on the prioritised introduction of five new vaccines. The tool was acceptable to the NITAG and supported their recommendations to the MOH. The tool highlighted sensitivity in the prioritisation process to the inherent biases of different stakeholders. This feature also enabled examination of the implications of data uncertainty. Feedback from users identified areas where the tool could more explicitly support evidence-to-recommendation frameworks, ultimately informing the next generation of the platform, PriorityVax.Country ownership and priority setting in vaccine decisions are central to sustainability. PriorityVax promotes auditable and rigorous deliberations; enables and captures the decision matrix of users; and generates shareable documentation of the process.

Indexed as

Immunization ProgramsVaccinesAdvisory CommitteesHealth PolicyHumansVaccinationVaccineshealth policyimmunisationpublic healthvaccines

Identifiers

PMID33239338
PMCPMC7689585
OpenAlexW3108577982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.