Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567125›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2026

Vaccine delay in routine childhood vaccines in the post-COVID-19 era in Jiangning, Nanjing, China.

Dan Guo, Jiazhen Dai, Tiantian Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dan GuoDepartment of Preventive Health Branch, Jiangning Clinical Medical College, Kangda College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jiazhen DaiDepartment of Preventive Health Branch, Jiangning Clinical Medical College, Kangda College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Tiantian ZhangDepartment of Laboratory Department, Jiangning Clinical Medical College, Kangda College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: There is evidence indicating that the routine childhood vaccines rate has decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to investigate the status of routine childhood vaccinations in the post-pandemic era and assess whether it has reverted to pre-pandemic levels. Methods: We collected children born between January 1, 2013 and November 30, 2024 who were vaccinated in the vaccination clinic of Nanjing Jiangning Hospital. We conducted an analysis of the delayed vaccination situation during this period, compared the differences across the three phases-the pre-COVID-19 era, the COVID-19 era, the post-COVID-19 era-and examined the temporal changing trends following the epidemic. Results: Compared to the pre-epidemic period, most routine childhood vaccinations delayed both during and after the epidemic period. In the post-pandemic phase, many vaccines (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin, Poliomyelitis vaccine3, Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis Combined Vaccine3, Diphtheria, and Tetanus Combined Vaccine, Measles-containing vaccine1-2, Live attenuated Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine1-2, Group AC meningitis polysaccharide vaccine2) were administered even later than during the epidemic, and there were no signs of improvement over time. Conclusions: Delays in routine vaccination of children persist after the pandemic, possibly due to a lack of confidence in the vaccine. More effective measures are needed to improve this worrying situation.

Indexed as

Post-epidemicRoutine childhood vaccinesVaccination delayVaccineVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID41567125
PMCPMC12818979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.