ArticleCureus2026
Optional Vaccines, Collective Risk.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination effectiveness depends not only on biological efficacy but also on how recommendations are framed and communicated in clinical practice. When vaccines are presented as routine standard of care, uptake remains high and responsibility is shared across clinicians, institutions, and communities. In contrast, framing vaccine recommendations as discretionary through shared clinical decision-making may unintentionally generate uncertainty, increase decisional burden for families, and reduce vaccine uptake. In a globally connected information environment, such ambiguity can extend beyond national borders, influencing vaccine confidence in health systems with limited capacity to manage uncertainty. This editorial argues that the issue lies not in shared decision-making itself, but in how "optional" framing is interpreted by clinicians and the public. Maintaining clear, routine vaccine recommendations is essential to sustaining trust, supporting efficient preventive care, and protecting population health.
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.