ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021
Estimating Population-Level Effects of the Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Using Routinely Collected Immunization Data.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the impact of vaccination on pertussis dynamics in Sweden.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Examining the interaction between area-level immunity coverage and individual-level immunity to help quantify indirect herd benefits: a population-based retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Global, regional, and national burdens of pertussis among adults: a systematic analysis of age-specific trends using Global Burden of Diseases 2021 data.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2025Article
- Designs for Vaccine Studies.Annual review of statistics and its application · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring and reporting the different population-level effects of the acellular pertussis vaccine on pertussis disease in addition to direct effects can increase the cost-effectiveness of a vaccine.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of children born between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2017, in King County, Washington, who were enrolled in the Washington State Immunization Information System. Diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccination data from in the Washington State Immunization Information System was linked with pertussis case data from Public Health Seattle and King County. Census-level vaccination coverage was estimated as proportion of age-appropriately vaccinated children residing in it. Direct vaccine effectiveness was estimated by comparing pertussis risk in fully vaccinated and undervaccinated children. Population-level vaccine effectiveness (VE) measures were estimated by comparing pertussis risk in census tracts in the highest quartile for vaccination coverage with that in the lowest quartile.
resultsFor direct protection, estimated VE was 76% (95% confidence interval, 63%-84%) in low-vaccination-coverage clusters, and it decreased to 47% (13%-68%) in high-coverage clusters, after adjustment for potential confounders. The estimated indirect VE was 45.0% (95% confidence interval, 1%-70%), the total VE 93.9% (91%-96%), and the overall VE 42.2% (19%-60%).
conclusionOur findings suggest that DTaP vaccination provided direct as well as indirect protection in the highly immunized King County, Washington. Routine DTaP vaccination programs may have the potential to provide not only protection for vaccinated individuals but also for the undervaccinated individuals living in the same area.
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.