Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260139›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2022

Differential health impact of intervention programs for time-varying disease risk: a measles vaccination modeling study.

Allison Portnoy, Yuli Lily Hsieh, Kaja Abbas, Petra Klepac, Heather Santos, Logan Brenzel, Mark Jit, Matthew Ferrari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Allison PortnoyCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. aportnoy@mail.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-1324
Yuli Lily HsiehInterfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, 02138, USA.
Kaja AbbasDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Petra KlepacDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Heather SantosDepartment of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, 16801, USA.
Logan BrenzelBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, 98109, USA.
Mark Jit *Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Matthew Ferrari *Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, 16801, USA.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPennsylvania State University · USGates Foundation · USHarvard University · USHarvard University Press · US

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-009125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDynamic modeling is commonly used to evaluate direct and indirect effects of interventions on infectious disease incidence. The risk of secondary outcomes (e.g., death) attributable to infection may depend on the underlying disease incidence targeted by the intervention. Consequently, the impact of interventions (e.g., the difference in vaccination and no-vaccination scenarios) on secondary outcomes may not be proportional to the reduction in disease incidence. Here, we illustrate the estimation of the impact of vaccination on measles mortality, where case fatality ratios (CFRs) are a function of dynamically changing measles incidence.

methodsWe used a previously published model of measles CFR that depends on incidence and vaccine coverage to illustrate the effects of (1) assuming higher CFR in "no-vaccination" scenarios, (2) time-varying CFRs over the past, and (3) time-varying CFRs in future projections on measles impact estimation. We used modeled CFRs in alternative scenarios to estimate measles deaths from 2000 to 2030 in 112 low- and middle-income countries using two models of measles transmission: Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and DynaMICE. We evaluated how different assumptions on future vaccine coverage, measles incidence, and CFR levels in "no-vaccination" scenarios affect the estimation of future deaths averted by measles vaccination.

resultsAcross 2000-2030, when CFRs are separately estimated for the "no-vaccination" scenario, the measles deaths averted estimated by PSU increased from 85.8% with constant CFRs to 86.8% with CFRs varying 2000-2018 and then held constant or 85.9% with CFRs varying across the entire time period and by DynaMICE changed from 92.0 to 92.4% or 91.9% in the same scenarios, respectively. By aligning both the "vaccination" and "no-vaccination" scenarios with time-variant measles CFR estimates, as opposed to assuming constant CFRs, the number of deaths averted in the vaccination scenarios was larger in historical years and lower in future years.

conclusionsTo assess the consequences of health interventions, impact estimates should consider the effect of "no-intervention" scenario assumptions on model parameters, such as measles CFR, in order to project estimated impact for alternative scenarios according to intervention strategies and investment decisions.

Indexed as

MeaslesHumansIncidenceVaccinationHealth impact modelingMeaslesTime-dependent riskVaccination

Identifiers

PMID35260139
PMCPMC8904070
OpenAlexW4221066684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.