Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35814493›Full record

ReviewDrugs in context2022

Addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

George Kassianos, Joan Puig-Barberà, Hannah Dinse, Martin Teufel, Özlem Türeci, Shanti Pather

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs in context, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors.

George KassianosRoyal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
Joan Puig-BarberàFundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunidad Valenciana, Valencia, Spain.
Hannah DinseUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
Martin TeufelUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
Özlem TüreciBioNTech SE, Mainz, Germany.
Shanti PatherBioNTech SE, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Indexed as

boosterscoronavirusCOVID-19hesitancyinfectious diseasepublic healthSARS-CoV-2vaccination

Identifiers

PMID35814493
PMCPMC9225513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.