ArticleVaccine2021
Is further research on adult pneumococcal vaccine uptake improvement programs worthwhile? Α value of information analysis.
Article in Vaccine, 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.
- AI-Assisted Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Pneumococcal Disease: Development and Validation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Impact of Serotype Uncertainty on Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Options: A Value of Information Analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of article screening and data extraction performance by an AI systematic literature review platform.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPneumococcal vaccination policy for US adults is evolving, but previous research has shown that programs to increase vaccine uptake are economically favorable, despite parameter uncertainty. Using value of information (VOI) analysis and prior analyses, we examine the value of further research on vaccine uptake program parameters.
methodsIn US 50-64-year-olds, current vaccine recommendations with and without an uptake program were analyzed. In older adults, current recommendations and an alternative strategy (polysaccharide vaccine for all, adding conjugate vaccine only for the immunocompromised) with and without uptake programs were examined. Uptake program parameters were derived from a clinical trial (absolute uptake increase 12.3% [range 0-25%], per-person cost $1.78 [range $0.70-$2.26]), with other parameters obtained from US databases. VOI analyses incorporated probabilistic sensitivity analysis outputs into R-based regression techniques.
resultsIn 50-64-year-olds, an uptake program cost $54,900/QALY gained compared to no uptake program. For ages ≥65, the program cost $287,000/QALY gained with the alternative strategy and $765,000/QALY with current recommendations. In younger adults, population-level expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $59.7 million at $50,000/QALY gained and $2.8 million at $100,000/QALY gained. In older adults, EVPI values ranged from ~$1 million to $34.5 million at $100,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds. The population expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for combined uptake program cost and uptake improvement parameters in the younger population was $368,700 at $50,000/QALY and $43,900 at $100,000/QALY gained thresholds. In older adults, population EVPPI for vaccine uptake program parameters was $0 at both thresholds, reaching a maximum value of $445,000 at a $225,000/QALY threshold. Other model parameters comprised larger components of the global EVPI.
conclusionVOI results do not support further research on pneumococcal vaccine uptake programs in adults at commonly cited US cost-effectiveness benchmarks. Further research to reduce uncertainty in other aspects of adult pneumococcal vaccination is justifiable.
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.