ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2024
Bibliometric and visual analyses of vaccine literacy research from 1982 to 2023.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine literacy (VL) is an important part of health literacy (HL), which is of great significance in reducing vaccine hesitancy and improving vaccine coverage rate. We aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of VL research conducted from 1982 to 2023 to evaluate its current status and prospects. All relevant publications were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database and the Scopus database. The Bibliometrix R-package and VOSviewer software were used to analyze the publication outputs, countries, organizations, authors, journals, cited publications, and keywords. In total, 1,612 publications were included. The number of articles published on VL generally showed an increasing trend. The United States was in a leading position among all countries and had the closest connections with other countries and organizations. Its in-depth study of vaccine hesitancy provided a good foundation for VL research. Harvard University was the most productive organization. Bonaccorsi G was the most productive and cited author.
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.