ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the links between NITAGs and academic institutions: a landscape analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNational Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are multidisciplinary groups of national experts who provide independent advice to policy makers on issues related to immunisation and vaccines, based on evidence and the national context. On the other hand, academic institutions can be described as organisations dedicated to education and research. These include schools, colleges, universities and research centres that offer formal education, conduct scholarly research and contribute to knowledge in various fields. NITAGs can enhance their capacity by linking with academic institutions and leveraging scientific expertise in research, data analysis, modelling, resource procurement and management, and policy formulation. The proposed landscape analysis will explore the links between NITAGs and academic institutions, especially in the sub-Saharan African context, and, where such exist, document their characteristics and identify benefits, challenges and best practices for fostering such linkages. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This landscape analysis will use an adaptation of the WHO's quick guide manual on 'Performing a landscape analysis: Understanding health product research and development'. The planned landscape analysis will be conducted in two parts. The first part will entail a review of published literature to identify relevant documents on linkages between NITAGs and academic institutions. The second part will entail conducting key informant interviews with NITAG members, partners and other identified key stakeholders in two study countries: Ethiopia and Zambia. The transcribed scripts will be thematically analysed. The findings from both parts will be synthesised and presented as a descriptive landscape analysis report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of the parent study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cape Town (Reference 417/2025). It has also been approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zambia (REF. NO. 6760-2025) and the Ethiopian Public Health Association (EPHA/06/392/25). The landscape analysis report will be submitted to the commissioning funder (Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance) and will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal. REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://osf.io/vprka.
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.