ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2022
A cross-sectional survey to evaluate prescribers' knowledge and understanding of safety messages following Dengvaxia® product information update.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04170140 (A Cross-sectional Survey to Evaluate Prescribers' Knowledge and Understanding of Safety Messages Following Dengvaxia® Product Information Update), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
A Cross-sectional Survey to Evaluate Prescribers' Knowledge and Understanding of Safety Messages Following Dengvaxia® Product Information Update
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices about dengue vaccines in Latin America and the Caribbean: a scoping review.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional survey to evaluate prescribers' knowledge and understanding of safety messages following Dengvaxia® product information update.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs; i.e., educational materials) distributed to prescribers to ensure that only individuals with evidence of prior dengue infection (PDI, i.e., dengue seropositive) would be vaccinated with the tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV; Dengvaxia®).
methodsA survey was conducted in 2020 among 300 CYD-TDV prescribers in Brazil and Thailand to ascertain three success criteria: prescribers' awareness of the materials (receiving and reading them); knowledge of the key messages; and whether their self-reported behaviour regarding practice-related scenarios was aligned with the updated guidance.
resultsThe aRMMs were not generally effective as <80% of prescribers in both countries met two of the three predefined success criteria. In Brazil, 98.7% were aware of the aRMMs whereas in Thailand this criterion was fulfilled by 74.0%. Almost all prescribers knew that CYD-TDV was recommended only in individuals with PDI (98.7% and 96.7% in Brazil and Thailand, respectively). In Brazil, where vaccination was restricted to those with a documented history of PDI, 11.3% considered that confirmation should be done through a blood test. More than 75% in both countries considered additional signs of dengue, as early warning signs, and not only those regarded as such by the 2009 WHO guidelines.
conclusionsThese results do not support that the aRMMs were effective as the predefined success criteria were not met. The use of reliable rapid diagnosis tests together with the revised prescribing information and educational materials will facilitate the implementation and compliance with pre-vaccination screening for CYD-TDV eligibility.
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.