ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2025
Maximizing doses from multi-dose vaccine vials using the air bubble trapping technique.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Vaccine shortages present significant challenges for public health, necessitating strategies such as fractional dosing and the use of adjuvants to conserve doses. However, reducing vaccine wastage remains essential. One approach is the air bubble trapping technique (ABTT), which involves trapping an air bubble to minimize dead volume loss and maximize the number of doses extracted from multi-dose vials. Materials and Methods: This study compares ABTT with standard methods using 3 syringe types. Healthcare workers prepared 0.1 mL and 0.5 mL saline doses both with and without ABTT. Results: Results showed that ABTT produced comparable vaccine volumes to conventional techniques but required extra preparation time. ABTT reduced volume by 8.6% for 0.1 mL doses and 2.9% for 0.5 mL doses, with preparation times of 30.63 and 32.95 seconds, compared to 12.53 and 15.11 seconds without ABTT. Conclusion: ABTT was consistent across different syringe types and levels of user experience, allowing for practical integration into vaccination workflows.
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.