Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39803368›Full record

ArticleInfectious Disease Modelling2025

Evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns: Insights from unvaccinated mortality data.

Lixin Lin, Haydar Demirhan, Lewi Stone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious Disease Modelling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lixin LinMathematical Sciences, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Haydar DemirhanMathematical Sciences, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Lewi StoneMathematical Sciences, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examines a recently developed statistical approach for evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns in terms of deaths averted. The statistical approach makes predictions by comparing death rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The statistical approach is preferred for its simplicity and straightforwardness, especially when compared to the difficulties involved when fitting the many parameters of a dynamic SIRD-type model, which may even be an impossible task. We compared the estimated number of deaths averted by the statistical approach to the "ground truth" number of deaths averted in a relatively simple scheme (e.g., constant vaccination, constant

Indexed as

EpidemicEpidemiological modelHerd immunityIndirect effectReproductive numberVaccination effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID39803368
PMCPMC11719296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.