ArticleVaccines2025
Do We Have a Common Understanding of How Vaccine Policy Affects Health Equity? Evaluating Variability in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Equity Assessment.
Article in Vaccines, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework has assessed vaccine equity, in addition to clinical and epidemiological data, since 2020. The domain's use has not yet been evaluated.
methodsAuthors assessed web-published, Equity domain-inclusive ACIP Work Group EtR presentations occurring between October 2020 and October 2023. Domain judgments were scored and assigned variability ratings based on the number and spread of domain categories selected. Equity domain trends were evaluated using sample statistics and one- and two-way analyses of variance.
resultsOf the 44 assessed EtRs, 27 (61.4%) had variable judgments for at least one domain; 9 (20.4%) had variable Equity judgments. Across domains, Values had the greatest variability, followed by Equity. Across disease targets, EtRs assessing products for RSV prevention were most variable. Pediatric product EtRs had greater variability than adult products, and EtRs resulting in shared clinical decision-making (SCDM) recommendations had greater variability than those resulting in routine recommendations.
conclusionsValues and Equity domains judgment imprecision highlights a need for additional clarity to support consistent assessment.
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.