Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37748932›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2024

A risk science perspective on vaccines.

Ingrid Glette-Iversen, Terje Aven, Roger Flage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. A risk science perspective on vaccines.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Ingrid Glette-IversenDepartment of Safety, Economics and Planning, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Terje AvenDepartment of Safety, Economics and Planning, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Roger FlageDepartment of Safety, Economics and Planning, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2967-9104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines can be seen as one of the greatest successes in modern medicine. Good examples are the vaccines against smallpox, polio, and measles. Unfortunately, vaccines can have side effects, but the risks are considered by the health authorities and experts to be small compared to their benefits. Nevertheless, there are many who are skeptical of vaccination, something which has been very clearly demonstrated in relation to the COVID-19 disease. Risk is the key concept when evaluating a vaccine, in relation to both its ability to protect against the disease and its side effects. However, risk is a challenging concept to measure, which makes communication about vaccines' performance and side effects difficult. The present article aims at providing new insights into vaccine risks-the understanding, perception, communication, and handling of them-by adopting what is here referred to as a contemporary risk science perspective. This perspective clarifies the relationships between the risk concept and terms like uncertainty, knowledge, and probability. The skepticism toward vaccines is multifaceted, and influenced by concerns that extend beyond the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. However, by clarifying the relationships between key concepts of risk, particularly how uncertainty affects risk and its characterization, we can improve our understanding of this issue.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentVaccinationVaccinesCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsUncertaintyCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesdecision‐makingrisk characterizationrisk communicationvaccination riskvaccine risk

Identifiers

PMID37748932
PMCPMC11669561

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.