ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
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
Optimizing vaccination impact during an emerging disease becomes crucial when vaccine supply is limited, and robust protection requires multiple doses. Facing this challenge during the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccine deployment, a pivotal policy question arose: whether to administer a single dose to a larger proportion of the population by deferring the second dose, or to prioritize stronger protection for a smaller subset of the population with the established dosing interval from clinical trials. Using a delay-differential model and considering waning immunity and distribution capacity, we compared these strategies. We found that the efficacy of the first dose significantly influences the impact of delaying the second dose. Even for a relatively low efficacy of the first dose, a delayed strategy may outperform vaccination with the recommended dosing interval in reducing short-term hospitalizations and deaths despite increase in infections. The optimal delay, however, depends on the specific outcome measured and timelines within which the vaccination strategy is evaluated. We found transition lines for the relative reduction of infection, hospitalization and death below which vaccination with the recommended schedule is the preferred strategy. In a realistic parameter space, our results highlight scenarios in which the conclusions of previous studies are invalid.
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.