Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38508618›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Paulina Stehlik, Caroline Dowsett, Ximena Camacho, Michael O Falster, Renly Lim, Sharifa Nasreen, Nicole L Pratt, Sallie-Anne Pearson, David Henry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Paulina StehlikSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University Faculty of Health, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia p.stehlik@griffith.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-228X
Caroline DowsettSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University Faculty of Health, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7734-9436
Ximena CamachoSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael O FalsterSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6444-7272
Renly LimQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4135-2523
Sharifa NasreenSUNY Downstate Health Sciences, University School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9793-113X
Nicole L PrattQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, University of South Australia Clinical & Health Sciences Academic Unit, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sallie-Anne PearsonSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David HenryInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-2242

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy came from randomised trials. Many important questions subsequently about vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been addressed using real-world studies (RWS) and have informed most vaccination policies globally. As the questions about VE have evolved during the pandemic so have data, study design, and analytical choices. This scoping review aims to characterise this evolution and provide insights for future pandemic planning-specifically, what kinds of questions are asked at different stages of a pandemic, and what data infrastructure and methods are used? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify relevant studies in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health VIEW-hub database, which curates both published and preprint VE RWS identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the WHO COVID Database, MMWR, Eurosurveillance, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, Europe PMC, Research Square, Knowledge Hub, and Google. We will include RWS of COVID-19 VE that reported COVID-19-specific or all-cause mortality (coded as 'death' in the 'effectiveness studies' data set).Information on study characteristics; study context; data sources; design and analytic methods that address confounding will be extracted by single reviewer and checked for accuracy and discussed in a small group setting by methodological and analytic experts. A timeline mapping approach will be used to capture the evolution of this body of literature.By describing the evolution of RWS of VE through the COVID-19 pandemic, we will help identify options for VE studies and inform policy makers on the minimal data and analytic infrastructure needed to support rapid RWS of VE in future pandemics and of healthcare strategies more broadly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As data is in the public domain, ethical approval is not required. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and working-papers to policy makers. REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZHDKR.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicVaccine EfficacyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19INFECTIOUS DISEASESMortalityProtocols & guidelinesPUBLIC HEALTHSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID38508618
PMCPMC10952922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.