Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701468›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026

National immunisation recommendations: why country-specific evidence and context matter.

Robin Schaefer, Thomas Harder, Frank Sandmann, Ole Wichmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Robin SchaeferImmunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas HarderImmunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Frank SandmannImmunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Ole WichmannImmunization Unit, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are independent expert groups issuing recommendations on the introduction and use of licensed vaccines in national programmes. They consider both context-free evidence - safety, efficacy, effectiveness - and country-specific aspects, including local epidemiology, cost-effectiveness, societal values, and programmatic feasibility. Several policy developments in the European Union (EU), including EU-level joint clinical assessments under the new Health Technology Assessment regulation and non-binding recommendations by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, reflect a desire to reduce duplication of efforts but also a push towards harmonisation of immunisation recommendations across countries. Using the German NITAG as an example, we illustrate that identical clinical evidence can legitimately yield different national recommendations. Even though equitable access to vaccines across countries is desirable, fundamental differences in country-specific context limit harmonising national immunisation schedules. International collaboration and supra-national guidance can support but not substitute for national, context-sensitive public health decision-making.

Indexed as

Country-specific evidenceEvidence-based recommendationsImmunisationNational Immunisation Technical Advisory GroupsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID42701468
PMCPMC13545444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.