ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2022
Effectiveness of an outbreak dose of mumps-containing vaccine in two First Nations communities in Northern Ontario, Canada.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine childhood vaccination among ethnocultural groups in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between 18 Dec 2017 and 27 June 2018, a mumps outbreak occurred in two Canadian Indigenous communities. An outbreak dose of mumps-containing vaccine was offered as part of control measures. We conducted a cohort study and survival analysis to describe the outbreak and evaluate the outbreak dose, extracting vaccination information on all community members (n = 3,135) from vaccination records. There were 70 mumps cases; 56% had received two pre-outbreak vaccine doses. Those who received a pre-outbreak dose more distantly had higher rates of mumps compared to those with more recent doses (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.4 (95%CI: 0.7-20.6) for receipt >20 years before vs. receipt ≤3 years). During the outbreak, 33% (1,010/3,080) of eligible individuals received an outbreak dose. The adjusted hazard ratio for no outbreak dose receipt was 2.7 (95%CI: 1.0-10.1). Our results suggest that an outbreak dose of mumps-containing vaccine may be an effective public health intervention, but further study is warranted.
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.