ArticleVaccines2024
Optimal Timing Regularly Outperforms Higher Coverage in Preventative Measles Supplementary Immunization Campaigns.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. 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.
- Routine immunization intensification, vaccination campaigns, and measles transmission in Southern Nigeria.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measles threatens the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of children and there are countries where routine immunization systems miss enough individuals to create the risk of large outbreaks. To help address this threat, measles supplementary immunization activities are time-limited, coordinated campaigns to immunize en masse a target population. Timing campaigns to be concurrent with building outbreak risk is an important consideration, but current programmatic standards focus on campaigns achieving a high coverage of at least 95%. We show that there is a dramatic trade-off between campaign timeliness and coverage. Optimal timing at coverages as low as 50% for areas with weak routine immunization systems is shown to outperform the current standard, which is delayed by as little as 6 months. Measured coverage alone is revealed as a potentially misleading performance metric.
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.