ArticleVaccine: X2024
Lot quality assurance sampling for coverage evaluation of a new vaccine: A pilot study.
Article in Vaccine: X, 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.
- The opportunities for and barriers to antimicrobial resistance surveillance by lot quality assurance sampling in livestock: Findings from interviews with stakeholders in Germany.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Worldwide, vaccine-preventable diseases have been a significant cause of mortality in the under-5 age group. To reduce the disease burden, new vaccines are being introduced in every country's immunization programmes. For this to happen, high vaccination coverage is necessary. However, rapidly identifying the areas that fail to reach the expected coverage becomes cumbersome. During recent years, lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS) has been widely used in evaluating immunization coverage across the globe. The present study aims to pilot this approach for field monitoring of a new vaccine against routine concurrent field monitoring in one of the North-Eastern states of India. Methodology: For LQAS, a community-based cross-sectional study was undertaken among 55 children aged 0-23 months in all 5 Primary health centres (lots) of Medziphema block, Dimapur, Nagaland. The total sample size for LQAS was calculated based on α = 5, β = 90 using Lemeshow and Taber-LQAS table with a target level of immunization defined as 90 % and the lower limit set to 55 %. For the concurrent field monitoring, a sample of 30 children in the same age group was selected through random sampling. Pre-designed, pre-tested questionnaire for the caregivers, scripted on a digital tool was employed with verification of immunization card and caregiver's recall. Data was analyzed using SPSS software version 25.0. Results: The study found a slight difference in the percentage of children age-appropriately vaccinated for PCV (as per the schedule) in concurrent field monitoring (93.3 %) and LQAS (90.9 %). However, no statistically significant difference was found in comparing the immunization coverage using both methodologies (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The study findings encourage that LQAS can be considered for monitoring the immunization coverage of a newly introduced vaccine. It offers the added advantage of identifying poor/low-performing pockets that require focused attention.
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.