ArticleTurkish thoracic journal2022
Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on the Scientific Articles in PubMed Database.
Article in Turkish thoracic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePublications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about "vaccine hesitancy" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as "cross-sectional," "case-control," and "cohort" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool.
resultsSixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention "vaccine." While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword "COVID-19" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is "vaccine hesitancy" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by "vaccine" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%).
conclusionThis study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.
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.