Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018621›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2024

Research priorities to support typhoid conjugate vaccine decision-making in India: evidence assessment and stakeholder survey.

Vijayalaxmi V Mogasale, Anish Sinha, Jacob John, Habib Hasan Farooqui, Arindam Ray, Tracey Chantler, Vittal Mogasale, Bhim Gopal Dhoubhadel, W John Edmunds, Andrew Clark and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors.

Vijayalaxmi V MogasaleDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Dynamics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9564-8760
Anish SinhaDepartment of Public Health Science, Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
Jacob JohnDepartment of Community Health & Development, Christian Medical College Vellore, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Habib Hasan FarooquiCollege of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Arindam RayDepartment of Infectious Disease & Vaccine Delivery, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5955-0352
Tracey ChantlerDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Vittal MogasaleGraduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of).ORCID 0000-0003-0596-8072
Bhim Gopal DhoubhadelSchool of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
W John EdmundsDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Dynamics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Andrew ClarkDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kaja AbbasDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Dynamics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0563-1576

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: India has a high typhoid fever burden. In 2022, the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation recommended introducing typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) into the Universal Immunisation Programme. Our study aims to identify research priorities to support ongoing TCV decision-making in India. Methods: We identified 45 evidence factors for TCV decision-making in India by adapting WHO's Evidence-to-Recommendation framework. We assigned an evidence gap score for each evidence factor from 0 (low) to 4 (high) based on the availability and sufficiency, quality, breadth and applicability of evidence identified in a literature review (end date 30 November 2023). We assigned each evidence factor an importance score based on the results of an online survey conducted among national immunisation stakeholders (n=22, 1 July 2023-31 October 2023), where they ranked the importance of seven WHO's Evidence-to-Recommendation criteria and several evidence factors within them. We rescaled mean stakeholder rankings into importance scores from 0 (low) to 4 (high). Finally, we added the evidence gap score to the importance score and used the overall scores to identify research priorities to support ongoing TCV decision-making in India. Results: We estimated the highest evidence priority scores for public perception of typhoid fever, vaccination budget impact, vaccine availability, socioeconomic impact, fiscal space, antimicrobial resistance tracking, typhoid fever mortality, public perception of TCV, immunisation managers' acceptance and vaccine schedule preferences among caregivers. Conclusion: By adapting WHO's Evidence-to-Recommendation framework to the Indian context, we systematically identified several research priorities to support ongoing decision-making on TCV in India. These priorities will evolve as new research studies and questions emerge about the optimal scheduling, roll-out and implementation of TCV in India.

Indexed as

Disease Transmission, InfectiousEpidemiologyPublic HealthPublic Health PracticeVaccination

Identifiers

PMID40018621
PMCPMC11816874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.