ReviewVaccine: X2024
A literature review and evidence-based evaluation of the Dutch national immunisation schedule yield possibilities for improvements.
Review in Vaccine: X, 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.
- Article
- Persistence of vaccine-induced serotype-related pathology in invasive pneumococcal disease in children. Community of Madrid, 2007-2024.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Product- and schedule-specific vaccine effectiveness against invasiveEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Characterizing the landscape of pediatric immunization schedules in the US and Europe.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Cohort Event Monitoring of MMR and DT-IPV Vaccination at 9 Years of Age in The Netherlands.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) develop historically. Its performance (disease incidences, vaccination coverage) is monitored. Reviewing the schedule as a whole could inform on further optimisation of the programme, i.e., providing maximal protection with the lowest number of doses. We systematically evaluated the performance and strategies of the Dutch pathogen-specific NIP schedules through literature review, assessment of surveillance data and expert opinions. Pathogen-specific vaccinations were categorised according to their strategy of protection: I) elimination or eradication, II) herd immunity or III) 'only' individual protection. The schedule of each vaccine-component was evaluated based on fixed criteria: 1. Is the achieved protection adequate? 2. Is the intended protection achieved? 3. Does the programme include too many or too few doses? 4. Is the timing optimal or acceptable? and 5. Are there drawbacks of the NIP for (part of) the population? Identified issues were explored using surveillance data and literature. Using fixed criteria facilitated comparison between pathogens and revealed opportunities to optimise the Dutch NIP by: i. Reducing the number of polio and tetanus vaccinations; ii. prolonging the interval between diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccine doses for improved effectiveness; iii. Expedite the second measles vaccination from 9 to 2-4 years of age to offer unvaccinated children and primary vaccine failures an earlier chance to be protected; and iv. Delaying the second mumps vaccination to enhance protection in adolescents/young adults. No schedule adaptations were deemed necessary for the vaccines against HPV, rubella, pneumococcal disease, and meningococcal disease. Based on this evaluation the NITAG advised to move the DTaP-IPV-HBV-Hib-booster from age 11 to 12 months, the second MMR-dose from 9 to 2-4 years, replace the Tdap-IPV at 4 years with a Tdap at 5-6 years and move the dt-IPV from 9 to 14 years. Implementation of these changes is planned for 2025.
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.