ReviewExpert review of vaccines2025
Strengths and limitations of non-survey-based data sources for assessing adult vaccination coverage in the United States.
Review in Expert review of vaccines, 2025. 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.
- Accuracy of Surveys for Estimating Coverage for Hepatitis A and B Vaccinations in Adults.Preventing chronic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNon-survey-based data sources (e.g. electronic health records, administrative claims) have been used to estimate vaccination coverage among US adults. However, these data sources were not collected for research or surveillance purposes and may have substantial limitations. The objectives of this narrative review were to: 1) identify published studies that used non-survey-based data sources to estimate adult vaccination coverage for one or more routinely recommended vaccines; and 2) summarize the strengths and limitations of these data sources for coverage assessments. AREAS COVERED: Thirty-four publications derived from 9 data sources were reviewed: 16 publications were in a general population (i.e. defined by age), 12 were among pregnant women, and 6 were among individuals with chronic health conditions. While several data sources used continuous health insurance enrollment to define the study population, doing so limited generalizability to stably insured populations. Methods for obtaining race and ethnicity data were complex and potentially subject to bias. None of the reviewed studies presented any formal assessment of vaccine data validity. EXPERT OPINION: While multiple non-survey-based data sources have been used to assess adult vaccination coverage in the United States, important limitations exist, including related to generalizability, data validity, and risk of bias.
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.