ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2021
Estimating the Effectiveness of Rotavirus Vaccine Schedules.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and molecular epidemiology of rotavirus gastroenteritis among children in Nairobi's urban informal settlements following introduction of the Rotavac® vaccine.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Advancing Principled Pharmacoepidemiologic Research to Support Regulatory and Healthcare Decision Making: The Era of Real-World Evidence.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Comparative effectiveness of alternative intervals between first and second doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Longer intervals and extra doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImportant questions exist regarding the comparative effectiveness of alternative childhood vaccine schedules; however, optimal approaches to studying this complex issue are unclear.
methodsWe applied methods for studying dynamic treatment regimens to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different rotavirus vaccine (RV) schedules for preventing acute gastroenteritis-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalization. We studied the effectiveness of six separate protocols: one- and two-dose monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1); one-, two-, and three-dose pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5); and no RV vaccine. We used data on all infants to estimate the counterfactual cumulative risk for each protocol. Infants were censored when vaccine receipt deviated from the protocol. Inverse probability of censoring-weighted estimation addressed potentially informative censoring by protocol deviations. A nonparametric group-based bootstrap procedure provided statistical inference.
resultsThe method yielded similar 2-year effectiveness estimates for the full-series protocols; weighted risk difference estimates comparing unvaccinated children to those adherent to either full-series (two-dose RV1, three-dose RV5) corresponded to four fewer hospitalizations and 12 fewer ED visits over the 2-year period per 1,000 children. We observed dose-response relationships, such that additional doses further reduced risk of acute gastroenteritis. Under a theoretical intervention to fully vaccinate all children, the 2-year risk differences comparing full to observed adherence were 0.04% (95% CI = 0.03%, 0.05%) for hospitalizations and 0.17% (95% CI = 0.14%, 0.19%) for ED visits.
conclusionsThe proposed approach can generate important evidence about the consequences of delaying or skipping vaccine doses, and the impact of interventions to improve vaccine schedule adherence.
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.