ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2021
Evaluating the vaccination coverage: validity of household-hold vaccination booklet and caregiver's recall.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of DTaP-IPV//PRP-T vaccine against pertussis among infants and toddlers in Zhejiang, China: a retrospective cohort study.Emerging microbes & infections · 2026Article
- Incomplete immunization coverage and its related factors among children aged 1-5 years: evidence from the Indonesia Family Life Survey 5.African health sciences · 2026Article
- Differences in routine childhood immunization uptake between single and multiple healthcare facility use: the Kochi Adjunct Study of Japan Environment and Children's Study.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared results from household data sources to medical record sources by using data from a vaccination coverage survey.
methodsVaccination coverage (VC) was calculated based on parental recall, household vaccination booklet, and Zhejiang provincial immunization information system (ZJIIS). We evaluated the accuracy of VC based on household sources (vaccination booklet and recall) assuming the medical record was accurate. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were estimated as well as the Kappa statistic was also used to evaluate the agreement between data sources.
resultsAmong the 1,800 children identified in the household survey, all were registered in ZJIIS. VC estimated using the vaccination booklet alone was substantially lower than that based on medical records (net bias 3.4-16.7% in different age groups). VC based on parental recall ranged from 2.5% below (among children aged 1 year) to 16.7% points above (among children aged 6 years) than those based on medical records. Concordance was lowest for card estimates (32.5-45.5%). Sensitivity was <60% for all household sources, except for recall source. Specificity was lowest for recall estimates (14.5-42.6%). Positive predictive value was >75%, while negative predictive value was <50%, for all household sources. Kappa statistics generally indicated poor agreement between household and medical record sources.
conclusionsHousehold-retained vaccination booklets and parental recall were insufficient sources for evaluating the VC. Our findings emphasized the importance of taking interventions to make the vaccination booklet more consistent with the records from medical resource.
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.