ArticleVaccine: X2021
Co-administration of routine paediatric vaccines in England often deviates from the immunisation schedule.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the experiences and perceptions of co-administration of routine vaccines in adults: Findings from an embedded qualitative study with participants and research delivery staff in the ZosterFluCov randomized controlled trial.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Trial
- Available evidence on the co-administration of the four-component meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB) with three vaccines at the same visit among pediatric individuals.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Enhanced Timeliness and Co-Administration of Meningitis B Vaccination in Children: Impact of Funding in Valencian Community, Spain.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Safety and immunogenicity of co-administered meningococcal serogroup B (4CMenB) vaccine: A literature review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Review
- Safety of routine childhood vaccine coadministration versus separate vaccination.BMJ global health · 2022Observational
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine co-administration can facilitate the introduction of new vaccines in immunisation schedules and improve coverage. We analysed real life data to quantify the extent of routine paediatric vaccine co-administrations as recommended and as never recommended in the immunisation schedule in England, and assessed factors for recommended and never recommended vaccine co-administrations. Immunisation data for all scheduled routine paediatric vaccines between 2008 and 2018 was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We included 6'257'828 doses administered to 1'005'827 children. Twenty-one percent of vaccines were given separately, 79% were co-administered. Sixty-four percent of vaccines scheduled for co-administration were co-administered as recommended while 15% were administered separately. Among all vaccine co-administrations, 75% happened as recommended in the schedule, 4% were never recommended, while 21% deviated from the schedule. Vaccine co-administration according to the schedule varied greatly between vaccines. Forty-eight percent of English children received at least one of their vaccine co-administrations not as recommended in the immunisation schedule, with 19% of children receiving none of their co-administered vaccines as recommended. Late administration of one or more vaccines increased the odds for deviated co-administrations (OR 1.60) and strongly increased the odds for never recommended co-administrations (OR 5.34). Differences between genders, NHS regions, and IMD quintiles were statistically significant but small. Suboptimal co-administration rates for routine paediatric vaccines are a missed opportunity and should be optimised by concerted public health action.
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.