ReviewInfectious medicine2026
Interventions to improve pneumococcal vaccination coverage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Infectious medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: A meta-analytic review and a mixed-effects meta-regression on articles between 2013 and 2023 from PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect that assessed the impact of interventions on pneumococcal vaccination coverage was performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-RCTs, and excluded reviews, non-comparative or retrospective studies, as well as the ones for which the full text was not available or did not present raw data on vaccination. A subgroup analysis was performed by study design, intervention type, facilitator and population characteristics. Results: 16 articles were included out of 349 across three databases. Ten were RCTs and six were non-RCTs. Nine were from the USA, three from France and one from China, Zimbabwe, Singapore and Turkey respectively. Seven studies had physicians and four had pharmacists as facilitators. Most described direct interventions such as education and reminders. Ten focused on at-risk patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) was (1.06 [1.00, 1.13], Conclusion: This meta-analysis offers valuable insights into the factors that influence pneumococcal vaccination coverage and serves as a guide for the development of more effective and targeted strategies.
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.