Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33397366›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2021

Vaccination strategies for measles control and elimination: time to strengthen local initiatives.

F T Cutts, M J Ferrari, L K Krause, A J Tatem, J F Mosser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

F T CuttsDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. felicity.cutts@lshtm.ac.uk.
M J FerrariCenter for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
L K KrauseVaccine Delivery, Global Development, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
A J TatemWorldPop, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
J F MosserInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPennsylvania State University · USUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThrough a combination of strong routine immunization (RI), strategic supplemental immunization activities (SIA) and robust surveillance, numerous countries have been able to approach or achieve measles elimination. The fragility of these achievements has been shown, however, by the resurgence of measles since 2016. We describe trends in routine measles vaccine coverage at national and district level, SIA performance and demographic changes in the three regions with the highest measles burden.

findingsWHO-UNICEF estimates of immunization coverage show that global coverage of the first dose of measles vaccine has stabilized at 85% from 2015 to 19. In 2000, 17 countries in the WHO African and Eastern Mediterranean regions had measles vaccine coverage below 50%, and although all increased coverage by 2019, at a median of 60%, it remained far below levels needed for elimination. Geospatial estimates show many low coverage districts across Africa and much of the Eastern Mediterranean and southeast Asian regions. A large proportion of children unvaccinated for MCV live in conflict-affected areas with remote rural areas and some urban areas also at risk. Countries with low RI coverage use SIAs frequently, yet the ideal timing and target age range for SIAs vary within countries, and the impact of SIAs has often been mitigated by delays or disruptions. SIAs have not been sufficient to achieve or sustain measles elimination in the countries with weakest routine systems. Demographic changes also affect measles transmission, and their variation between and within countries should be incorporated into strategic planning.

conclusionsRebuilding services after the COVID-19 pandemic provides a need and an opportunity to increase community engagement in planning and monitoring services. A broader suite of interventions is needed beyond SIAs. Improved methods for tracking coverage at the individual and community level are needed together with enhanced surveillance. Decision-making needs to be decentralized to develop locally-driven, sustainable strategies for measles control and elimination.

Indexed as

Disease EradicationImmunization ProgramsImmunization, SecondaryMeaslesAfricaAsia, SoutheasternChildCOVID-19HumansMeasles VaccineMediterranean RegionRegional Health PlanningSARS-CoV-2Vaccination CoverageMeasles VaccineCampaignsEliminationMeaslesRoutine immunization

Identifiers

PMID33397366
PMCPMC7781821
OpenAlexW3121025721

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.