Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34236947›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2021

Vaccine package inserts and prescribing habits of obstetricians-gynecologists for maternal vaccination.

Jannat Saini, Mallory K Ellingson, Richard H Beigi, Noni E MacDonald, Karina A Top, Sarah Carroll, Saad B Omer

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jannat SainiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7693-7073
Mallory K EllingsonDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2729-0661
Richard H BeigiUPMC Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Noni E MacDonaldDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Karina A TopDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9981-368X
Sarah CarrollImmunization, Infectious Disease and Public Health Preparedness, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, USA.
Saad B OmerDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Dalhousie University · CAYale University · USAmerican Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite ample evidence of the safety and efficacy of the influenza vaccine and the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy, two-thirds of pregnant women do not receive these vaccines. Providers have a significant role in increasing prenatal vaccine uptake. It is important to understand how different sources of vaccine prescribing information, such as Food and Drug Administration package inserts, influence provider recommendations. We aimed to examine the role of vaccine package inserts in provider recommendations and perceptions of safety and effectiveness of vaccines during pregnancy. A cross-sectional survey was mailed to a random, weighted sample of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows living in the United States in March 2019. Providers were asked about their attitudes toward package inserts, and to evaluate sample package insert statements following two different labeling rules. Their evaluations of each rule were then compared. Of the 321 respondents, the majority (90%, 288/321) recommended and/or administered maternal vaccinations. Few respondents (7.8%, 25/321) read package inserts for information regarding vaccination. Respondents were less likely to recommend sample vaccines with Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule-complying inserts (46.1%, 148/321) than vaccines with Pregnancy Category inserts (87.5%, 282/321). Although most providers did not actively utilize vaccine package inserts to inform recommendations, the previous Pregnancy Categories rule was preferred compared to the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule. Collaborative efforts to update inserts with current clinical practices for pregnancy would be valuable in reducing apprehensiveness around package inserts to generate safer and more cogent recommendations for pregnant women.

Indexed as

Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesWhooping CoughCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHabitsHumansPregnancyProduct LabelingUnited StatesVaccinationDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza Vaccinesobstetricians and gynecologistspackage insertsPregnancy and Lactation Labeling RulePregnancy Categoriesprescribing practicesVaccine hesitancyvaccine labeling

Identifiers

PMID34236947
PMCPMC8437486
OpenAlexW3181731841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.