Trial reportClinical transplantation2025
Effectiveness of a Personal Vaccination Recommendation Letter to Liver Transplant Patients and Family Physicians for Improving the Vaccination Status: Improving Vaccinations: Whom to Contact?
Trial report in Clinical transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Personal Vaccination Recommendation Letter to Liver Transplant Patients and Family Physicians for Improving the Vaccination Status: Improving Vaccinations: Whom to Contact?Clinical transplantation · 2025Trial
- Not just another shot: Tailoring vaccination in the era of modern liver transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaccination rates of immunosuppressed liver transplant recipients need to improve. We compared the effectiveness of a three-arm randomized intervention on vaccination rates in liver transplant recipients.
methodsTwo hundred and eighty-nine liver transplant recipients were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) patient intervention, (2) family physician intervention, and (3) combined patient and family physician intervention. The intervention consisted of a yellow information letter, which was personalized and sent to either the patient (1), the family physician (2), or both (3) in December 2016.
resultsIrrespective of the assigned intervention group, a significant increase in vaccination rates from baseline to follow-up after 2 years was observed for tetanus (53%-56%), pertussis (52%-57%), hepatitis A (44%-49%), hepatitis B (64%-71%), pneumococci (68%-75%), and the sequential pneumococcal vaccination (12%-22%). Comparing the interventions, the vaccination rate for hepatitis A was significantly higher at follow-up for intervention (3) (OR = 9.07, p = 0.043) and (2) (OR = 9.91, p = 0.034) than for intervention (1). Concerning the vaccination rate for hepatitis B, an odds ratio of 9.13 was observed for intervention (2) (p = 0.006) compared to (1). Interventions (2) and (3) were generally superior to the patient-centered intervention alone, with the exception of influenza vaccination.
conclusionThe results show the importance of family physicians in improving vaccination rates in liver transplant recipients. Establishing low-threshold communication channels, for example, via the electronic patient record, could improve cooperation between physicians in specialized outpatient clinics and family physicians.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS: DRKS00035422). Registration was done retrospectively due to time constraints and lack of human resources.
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.