ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Measuring vaccine effects on antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in low and middle-income countries: A scoping review of methodological approaches, data sources, metrics, and limitations.
Article in PLOS global 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccines represent a critical strategy for combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), yet methodological approaches for assessing their impact remain heterogeneous, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where both infectious disease and resistance burdens are highest. This scoping review systematically mapped the methodological approaches, data sources, and outcome measures used to evaluate vaccine impacts on AMR in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL for studies examining vaccine-AMR relationships in LMICs. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on study designs, data sources, outcome measures, and limitations. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Sixty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 58 primary studies and 4 reviews. Among primary studies, 45 were observational (72.6%), 11 were modelling studies (17.7%), 2 randomized trials (3.2%), and 4 systematic reviews (6.5%). Evidence concentrated heavily on pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, with minimal research on other WHO priority pathogens. Data sources included surveillance networks, carriage surveys, national reference laboratories, and administrative immunization records. Primary outcome measures included resistance prevalence (n = 58), serotype replacement (n = 18) and antimicrobial use data (n = 23) such as antibiotic prescriptions or defined daily doses. Common limitations included surveillance biases, incomplete vaccination records, single-site generalizability constraints, and limited linkage between microbiological and clinical outcomes. Substantial methodological heterogeneity characterizes vaccine-AMR research in LMICs, with systematic gaps in antimicrobial use data and evidence beyond pneumococcal vaccines. Strengthening digital health infrastructure, integrating antimicrobial use measurements into existing surveys, embedding resistance endpoints in vaccine trials, and standardizing outcome definitions across studies are essential to generate policy-relevant evidence for immunization programs in high-burden settings.
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.