ArticlePloS one2021
Impact of influenza vaccination in the Netherlands, 2007-2016: Vaccinees consult their general practitioner for clinically diagnosed influenza, acute respiratory infections, and pneumonia more often than non-vaccinees.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Severity Scale of Influenza and Acute Respiratory Illness Hospitalizations to Support Viral Genomic Surveillance: A Global Influenza Hospital Surveillance Network Pilot Study.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- The factors correlated with COVID-19 vaccination coverage in Chinese hypertensive patients managed by community general practitioner.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to develop an innovative population-based method to estimate the health effect of influenza vaccination based on electronic medical records collected within a general practitioner (GP)-based influenza surveillance system in the Netherlands.
methodsIn each season between 2006/07 and 2015/16, we fitted multilevel Poisson regression models to compare GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza, acute respiratory infections (ARI), pneumonia, and lower back pain (as a control) between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals. Season-specific relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled into summary risk ratio (SRR) through random-effects meta-analysis models. Analyses were stratified by patient age (<45, 45-59, 60-74, ≥75 years) and medical indication for the vaccine (any vs. none, subjects aged ≤60 years only).
resultsOverall, 12.6% and 21.4% of study subjects were vaccinated because of their age only or because of an underlying medical condition. Vaccine uptake declined over time, especially among subjects aged ≤74 years with medical indications for vaccination. Vaccinated individuals had significantly higher GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza (SRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.38, p-value <0.001), ARI (SRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.27-1.39, p-value <0.001), pneumonia (SRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.36, p-value <0.001), and lower back pain (SRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1.28, p-value <0.001) compared to unvaccinated individuals. DISCUSSION: Contrary to expectations, influenza vaccinees have GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza, ARI and pneumonia that are 24-33% higher compared to unvaccinated individuals. The lower back pain finding suggests that the increase in consultation rates is partially caused by confounding. Importantly, considering the data are not laboratory-confirmed, our results cannot be linked directly to influenza, but only to respiratory illnesses in general.
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.