SynthesisVaccine2026
Impact of standing orders on vaccine uptake: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Vaccine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
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
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to evaluate the impact of standing orders on vaccine coverage in clinical settings.
methodsTwo reviewers independently screened and included studies that evaluated use of standing orders either alone or in combination with other interventions and collected data on vaccine coverage. We extracted effect sizes for studies that used only standing orders as an intervention and had a comparison group.
resultsThe search yielded 56 eligible studies, 22 of which evaluated standing orders-only interventions. Standing orders increased vaccine uptake by a median of 13 percentage points (IQR 2-20 percentage points). Eight of these studies had a comparison group including 1 randomized trial; 5 were at low risk of bias. The overall findings were similar those for seasonal influenza vaccine (median increase of 12 percentage points; IQR, 6-24; 7 studies) and pneumococcal vaccines (14 percentage points; 2-20; 5 studies), the two most studied outcomes. Multi-component studies paired standing orders with interventions for providers frequently (34%-63% of studies), patients often (20%-49%), and systems least often (3%-14%).
conclusionsStanding orders show one of the largest effects among vaccine uptake interventions. Future research should focus on randomized trials, childhood vaccination, and behavioral aspects of implementation in healthcare systems.
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.