ArticleBMJ open2026
Benefits of childhood vaccines in ecological studies focusing on Germany: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
introductionGeneral statements that vaccinations are among the most important preventive measures in medicine are common in public health guidance. While the efficacy of individual vaccines is well established through randomised controlled trials and observational studies, ecological studies at the population level can provide complementary insights into the relative historical contributions of different childhood vaccinations to reductions in morbidity and mortality. To date, there has been a lack of systematic reviews of such comparative studies, especially with a focus on Germany. The aim of this scoping review is to map the state of research on ecological studies that compare the relative contribution of different childhood vaccinations to reducing morbidity and mortality, with a focus on reported data from Germany in an international comparison. A more precise scientific and public communication about vaccinations strengthens confidence in evidence-based vaccination recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Reporting will be in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A comprehensive search will be conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Web of Science, Scopus via Elsevier and Google Scholar, supplemented by grey literature sources. Studies will be selected and data charted by at least two independent reviewers using the Population/Concept/Context (PCC) framework. Results will be synthesised descriptively and presented thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required as this is a secondary analysis of published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and as part of the first author's doctoral thesis. The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4FH3X).
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.