ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
Expert Consensus on the Structure, Role, and Procedures of the Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices (KECIP) is a key advisory body the government to develop guidelines and provide technical advisory activities on immunization policies in Korea. A recent policy study, inspired by global best practices, aims to enhance KECIP's functionality for providing timely and transparent recommendations in the face of evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19.
methodsThis study reviewed the current status of KECIP and collected expert opinions through surveys and consultations. Among the 40 panel members who were surveyed, 19 responded to a questionnaire specifically designed to assess the potential areas of improvement within KECIP.
resultsThe majority of respondents favored maintaining the current member count and emphasized the need for a subcommittee. Opinions varied on issues such as the length of KECIP's term, the representation of vaccine manufacturers' perspectives, and the chairperson's role. However, there was a consensus on the importance of expertise, transparency, and fair proceedings within the committee.
conclusionThis study underscores the pivotal role of KECIP in shaping national immunization policies, emphasizing the necessity for informed guidance amidst evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases. Furthermore, it stressed the importance of enhancing KECIP's capacity to effectively address evolving public health challenges and maintain successful immunization programs in South Korea.
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.