ArticleBMC public health2026
Effectiveness and safety of 2-month versus 3-month pertussis vaccination initiation and the impact of dosing timeliness: a population-based birth cohort study in China.
Article in BMC public health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn January 2025, China advanced the recommended first pertussis vaccine dose from 3 to 2 months of age. We evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of 2-month initiation, which was already practised via pentavalent vaccine schedules prior to the policy change, and assessed the impact of dosing timeliness on pertussis risk.
methodsThis retrospective birth cohort study linked immunisation, disease surveillance, and adverse event databases in Chongqing, China. Infants born between September 1, 2023, and March 1, 2024, who completed an unmixed three-dose primary series of pertussis-containing combination vaccine were followed until September 1, 2024. We compared 2-month with 3-month initiation for pertussis incidence and adverse events following immunisation (AEFI); infants initiating at other ages (9.3%) or infected before dose 1 were excluded from effectiveness analyses.
findingsAmong 76,844 eligible infants, 2-month initiation reduced the pre-vaccination infection window: pertussis before dose 1 occurred in 3 (0.02%) versus 38 (0.07%) in the 3-month group. Of 69,612 infants in effectiveness analyses (13,815 and 55,797 in the 2-month and 3-month groups, respectively), post-primary series incidence was similar between groups (6.99 versus 6.80 per 1000 person-years). Timely inter-dose intervals were associated with lower pertussis risk regardless of initiation age (3.99 versus 10.66 per 1000 person-years for on-time versus non-adherent schedules), regardless of initiation age. AEFI were rare (0.34%) and comparable between groups, with no serious vaccine-related events.
interpretationTwo-month initiation provides equivalent protection and safety while narrowing the vulnerable pre-vaccination window. Timely inter-dose intervals are as critical as early initiation, a finding with global relevance. These data support China’s 2025 policy change.
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.