ReviewVaccines2024
Evaluating Scope and Bias of Population-Level Measles Serosurveys: A Systematized Review and Bias Assessment.
Review in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the basic reproduction number of measles in low-and middle-income settings using 172 seroprevalence studies: A modelling approach.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A Nationwide Seroprevalence Study for Measles in Individuals of Fertile Age in Romania.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fitting dynamic measles models to subnational case notification data from Ethiopia: Methodological challenges and key considerations.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The Use of Residual Blood Specimens in Seroprevalence Studies for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: A Scoping Review.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Integrated Serosurveillance of Infectious Diseases Using Multiplex Bead Assays: A Systematic Review.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasles seroprevalence data have potential to be a useful tool for understanding transmission dynamics and for decision making efforts to strengthen immunization programs. In this study, we conducted a systematized review and bias assessment of all primary data on measles seroprevalence in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by World Bank 2021 income classifications) published from 1962 to 2021.
methodsOn 9 March 2022, we searched PubMed for all available data. We included studies containing primary data on measles seroprevalence and excluded studies if they were clinical trials or brief reports, from only health-care workers, suspected measles cases, or only vaccinated persons. We extracted all available information on measles seroprevalence, study design, and seroassay protocol. We conducted a bias assessment based on multiple categories and classified each study as having low, moderate, severe, or critical bias. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326075).
resultsWe identified 221 relevant studies across all World Health Organization regions, decades, and unique age ranges. The overall crude mean seroprevalence across all studies was 78.0% (SD: 19.3%), and the median seroprevalence was 84.0% (IQR: 72.8-91.7%). We classified 80 (36.2%) studies as having severe or critical overall bias. Studies from country-years with lower measles vaccine coverage or higher measles incidence had higher overall bias.
conclusionsWhile many studies have substantial underlying bias, many studies still provide some insights or data that could be used to inform modelling efforts to examine measles dynamics and programmatic decisions to reduce measles susceptibility.
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.