ArticleVaccines2024
Prioritization of Vaccines for Introduction in the National Immunization Program in the Republic of Korea.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiologic and economic impact of introducing a National Immunization Program for herpes zoster vaccination on the prevention of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in South Korea, an ageing society.Epidemiology and infection · 2026Article
- Article
- Correction: Choi et al. Prioritization of Vaccines for Introduction in the National Immunization Program in the Republic of Korea.Vaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a framework for determining the prioritization of vaccine introduction in the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the Republic of Korea, with a focus on case examples assessed in 2021 and 2023. We describe the predefined criteria for evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP and the established process in the Republic of Korea. These criteria included disease characteristics, vaccine characteristics, rationality and efficiency of resource allocation, and the acceptance of immunization. The process of prioritizing NIP introduction involved several sequential steps: a demand survey, evidence collection, preliminary evaluation, priority evaluation, and decision making. In 2021 and 2023, 14 and 25 committee members participated in evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP, respectively. Overall, 13 and 19 NIP vaccine candidates were included in the 2021 and 2023 evaluations, respectively. Through the Delphi survey and consensus processes, the priority order was determined: vaccination against Rotavirus infection was the top priority in 2021, while Influenza 4v (for chronic disease patients) took precedence in 2023. This study demonstrates an evidence-based decision-making process within the healthcare field. The outlined approach may provide valuable guidance for policymakers in other countries seeking to prioritize the inclusion of new vaccines in their NIP.
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.