ArticleVaccine: X2022
Knowledge and perception regarding effectiveness in influenza vaccines among General Practitioners in Germany: A national survey.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To understand physicians' knowledge and perception regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccines and to communicate the importance of understanding the differences in terms of vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness. Methodology: This cross-sectional quantitative online survey was conducted using a questionnaire comprising 20 questions, between September 11 and 19, 2021. The survey was conducted across 14 cities in Germany, including physicians actively involved in influenza vaccine purchasing decisions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and paired Results: Eighty physicians (21%) completed the survey. Physicians defined the terms vaccine efficacy and effectiveness similarly, with only minimal distinctions. Forty-one percent agreed that both terms can be used interchangeably in clinical practice. A higher proportion used the phrase "observational study" for vaccine efficacy and 21% associated "controlled environment" with effectiveness. The majority of physicians indicated that antigen match to circulating strain plays a large role in overall effectiveness and vaccine coverage strongly influences overall influenza case prevention. Vaccine performance in observational studies under so-called "real-world conditions" and (vaccine independent) strain match were the most important factors to assess vaccine performance and vaccine choice. Conclusion: These findings show that physicians in Germany use the terms vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness interchangeably. A better knowledge of the differences between these terms will help to make informed decisions on the choice of influenza vaccine for its population. Finally, and most important, increasing the annual flu vaccine uptake rates will have more and the greatest beneficial impact on reducing flu-related disease and public health, regardless of the expression of the benefits for different vaccine types.
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.