ReviewJournal of infection prevention2026
The prevalence of measles vaccination in measles-infected healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of infection prevention, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Documentable evidence of previous receipt of 2-dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) is often sufficient as proof of measles immunity in healthcare workers (HCWs). The usefulness of this policy was assessed by estimating the global prevalences of different MCV-receipt statuses in measles infected HCWs. Methods: Eligible publications since 1974 were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Pooled prevalences were estimated by prevalence meta-analysis and meta-regressed using durations since MCV inclusion in the national immunization schedule (NIS) of respective study countries to measles outbreak years as a moderator. Results: Of the 7571 citations retrieved, 27 studies reporting on 1319 measles-infected HCWs aged 18-60 years (outbreak years: 1985-2019) were reviewed. Prevalences of measles-infected HCWs were- a. by MCV-receipt statuses: ≥1-dose: 41.0% (95% CI: 28.0, 55.0); ≥2-dose: 28.0% (95% CI: 11.0, 46.0); unvaccinated: 31.0% (95% CI: 17.0, 46.0); unknown: 21.0%; b. by gender: females: 65.0% (95% CI: 57.0, 72.0); males: 35.0% (95% CI: 28.0, 43.0); c. by birth year: born after MCV inclusion in NIS: 77.0% (95% CI: 66.0, 87.0) and in born before: 6.0% (95% CI: 0.0, 17.0); d. by health profession: nurses: 31.0% (95% CI: 24.0, 39.0); doctors: 27.0% (95% CI: 19.0, 36.0); students 5.0% (95% CI: 1.0, 12.0). The measles risk in ≥2-dose of MCV recipient HCWs increased with duration since MCV inclusion in NIS to outbreak occurrences (p < .05). Conclusion: In measles infected HCWs, as the rates of being ≥2-dose MCV recipient or unvaccinated were substantial and comparable, the role of documented 2-dose of MCV receipt alone as a proof of measles immunity remains uncertain.
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.