ReviewVaccines2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Interventions in Reducing Missed Opportunities for Vaccination Among Children Under Age Five.
Review in Vaccines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Implications of vaccine-delivery policy for dermatologic care: Lessons from recent US recommendations.JAAD international · 2026Article
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
introductionA knowledge gap exists around which interventions can be implemented to minimise missed opportunities for vaccination (MOVs) in children under age five. Children under age five experience higher rates of MOVs, making them a critical focus for interventions to reduce MOV. This study aims to plot evidence-based interventions reducing MOVs in children under age five.
methodsWe performed an electronic search without any language restriction for studies indexed between 1 January 1990 and 30 August 2025 in PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, CINAHL, and other sources. We included studies highlighting interventions reducing MOVs in children under age five. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When meta-analysis was not possible, results were reported individually.
resultsOut of 535 papers reviewed via titles and abstracts, 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, education interventions reduced the risk of MOVs by 35% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91). Our results also showed that electronic immunisation registries (EIRs) and alerts were successful in lowering the risk of MOVs by 29% (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92). Integrated delivery of health interventions reduced the risk of MOVs by 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83). Other interventions that reduced the risk of MOVs included integrating a pharmacist in the under-five vaccination programme (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72) and multicomponent interventions (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80). Financial incentives (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80, 0.94) and combined vaccines (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.76) showed a statistically significant MOV reduction. However, our results were graded from very low-to-moderate grade evidence.
conclusionsEducation interventions, EIRs and alerts, pharmacist inclusion in vaccination programme, integrated delivery of health interventions, multicomponent interventions, combined vaccines, and financial incentives may improve MOVs in children under age five as the evidence was graded from very low to moderate.
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.