A meta-analysis of influenza vaccination following correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.10.21258685: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable The reference to “appropriate control group” refers to the fact that one study was excluded because it was reported as a randomized controlled trial with a control group but the control group was judged not appropriate because it comprised pregnant women who reported not participating in an ‘opt in’ SMS information service. Randomization Inclusion Criteria: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: compared influenza vaccination rates where a single correspondence was sent versus no correspondence; was a randomized controlled trial with an appropriate control group; was published in English in a peer-reviewed journal; was not specific … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.10.21258685: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable The reference to “appropriate control group” refers to the fact that one study was excluded because it was reported as a randomized controlled trial with a control group but the control group was judged not appropriate because it comprised pregnant women who reported not participating in an ‘opt in’ SMS information service. Randomization Inclusion Criteria: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: compared influenza vaccination rates where a single correspondence was sent versus no correspondence; was a randomized controlled trial with an appropriate control group; was published in English in a peer-reviewed journal; was not specific to health care workers; and was conducted in an OECD country (given the particular relevance of such countries to the primary study question). Blinding 22 The three domains used were selection bias (concealment of allocation prior to randomization), performance bias (blinding of participants and study personnel), and detection bias (blinding of outcome assessors). Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Search Strategies: A search was undertaken of Web of Science (all databases), PsycINFO (empirical studies) and PubMed in February 2021 using the search string below. PsycINFOsuggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)PubMedsuggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)Assessment of Risk of Bias: The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was administered to assess the risk of bias across the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane Risk of Biassuggested: NoneStatistical Methods for Estimating Effect Size: The events of vaccination and total events (i.e., subsample size, inclusive of events and non-events) from the intervention and control groups were inputted into Review Manager v5.4 to generate risk ratio effect sizes. Review Managersuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Weaknesses of this review include the restriction to English language publications. This review only included studies undertaken in OECD countries as these were felt to be most pertinent to the primary review question of whether supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence increases influenza vaccine uptake, as in these countries public health systems are well developed and most members of the community have access to mass media. The generalizability of results across the population of OECD countries may be questioned, as the studies were undertaken in six countries and 16 of the 21 studies in the meta-analysis related to older adults (≥60 years) or groups with specific medical conditions that might be considered at high risk from influenza. These caveats aside, there is a second important implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19. Sending written vaccination correspondence directly to members of the community is likely to increase vaccine uptake more than using mass communications alone. When designing correspondence to support the uptake of the influenza vaccine, public health authorities should consider including the most reported content used in correspondence shown to increase influenza uptake. In particular, it is important to give a clear and strong recommendation to be vaccinated; provide information on vaccine effectiveness, the seriousness of influenza and how vaccination c...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
