ReviewCureus2025
The 2025 United States Measles Crisis: When Vaccine Hesitancy Meets Reality.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthy Trust and Pandemic Readiness in the Context of Messenger RNA Vaccines: Protocol for a Sequential Deliberative Dialogue Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Antiviral GHP-88310 blocks contact-mediated and airborne transmission in a ferret model of measles-like disease.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Target-Based Antiviral Drug Development Against Human Respiratory Viruses.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Age- and Sex-Dependent Heterogeneity in Mumps Virus Immunity Among US Blood Donors Born Between 1928-1993.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Engagement Trends in Online Vaccine Content: Longitudinal YouTube Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Prevention of neuroinfectious-diseases: high impact of vaccination programs - but the potential is not maxed out yet.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
- Global vaccine development.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Surveillance and analysis of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Zhejiang Province, China, 2020-2025.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review examines how declining vaccine uptake and growing vaccine hesitancy created pockets of susceptibility that enabled the outbreak and analyzes the epidemiological features and public health response. Key drivers of vaccine hesitancy (misinformation about vaccine safety, philosophical and religious exemptions, and pandemic-related disruptions) are discussed, along with the demographic patterns of under-vaccination in the U.S. Comparisons are drawn to notable measles outbreaks in Samoa (2019) and the United Kingdom (2018) to highlight common themes of insufficient immunity leading to severe outcomes. The review evaluates what aspects of the public health response were effective, including emergency vaccination campaigns, community engagement, and interagency coordination, and what challenges and failures impeded control, such as resource limitations and delayed counter-misinformation efforts. The economic impact of the outbreak is also considered, with containment efforts costing millions of dollars. We summarize the lessons learned about the importance of maintaining high vaccination coverage and suggest policy implications, which include stricter immunization requirements, proactive education to combat misinformation, and strengthening immunization infrastructure. Finally, future directions and recommendations are presented to prevent measles from regaining a foothold, emphasizing that sustained commitment to vaccination and public trust is critical to averting similar crises.
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.