ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2022
Vaccination Coverage of Privately Insured Children: Comparing U.S. Survey and Administrative Data.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNational Immunization Survey-Child data are used widely to assess childhood vaccination coverage in the U.S. This study compares National Immunization Survey-Child coverage estimates with estimates using other supplementary data sources.
methodsRetrospective analyses in 2021 assessed vaccination coverage of privately insured children for vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices by age 2 years, using the 2015-2018 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases and the 2018-2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. The coverage estimates were compared statistically with those using the 2016-2018 National Immunization Survey-Child.
resultsEstimated coverage ranged from 69.9% (≥2 doses of influenza vaccine) to 95.0% (≥3 doses of diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis vaccine) using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data and from 68.0% (≥2 doses of influenza vaccine) to 92.2% (≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine) using the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. The difference between the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and National Immunization Survey-Child estimates ranged from 0.1 to 4.3 percentage points and was statistically significant for 6 of the 13 assessed vaccines/doses and percentage of children receiving no vaccinations. The difference between the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and National Immunization Survey-Child estimates ranged from 0.4 to 7.2 percentage points and was statistically significant for 6 of the 10 assessed vaccines/doses.
conclusionsFor certain vaccines and populations of interest, the National Immunization Survey-Child, MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, and Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set data might give comparable coverage of privately insured children.
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.