How do national immunization technical advisory groups assess and use evidence: Findings from the SYSVAC survey
Vaccine, ISSN: 0264-410X, Vol: 43, Issue: Pt 2, Page: 126538
2025
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop evidence-based vaccination recommendations. Systematic reviews (SRs) are important tools in that process, but conducting them is very resource-intensive. Given the considerable number of immunization-related SRs published and to minimize duplication of effort, a more practical approach for NITAGs is to use existing SRs. Among multiple initiatives and resources to strengthen NITAGs, the freely accessible SYSVAC registry supports NITAGs in identifying suitable SRs when developing vaccination recommendations. Additional SYSVAC courses provide step-by-step training on how to use SRs. This cross-sectional survey was conducted online and involved 108 participants globally. The aim was to explore NITAGs user experience with evidence retrieval, to assess impact and use of the SYSVAC resources and training needs. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire. Most of the respondents were > 45 years old (75.9%) and represented 50 NITAGs from all six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. In total, 13/50 NITAGs (26.0%) had ease accessing full text publications. The preferred data sources to search for evidence were peer reviewed literature via PubMed and the WHO website (Strategic Advisory Group of Experts – SAGE – on Immunization). When developing vaccination recommendations, respondents stated using SRs mostly conducted by SAGE, other institutions or NITAGs (83.2%), recommendations of other countries (79.4%) and primary studies (73.8%). Respondents from 35 NITAGs stated to use the SYSVAC registry to search for evidence, leading to ≥69 recommendations being developed by NITAGs globally with its support. Aside existing SYSVAC courses on SR use, there was great interest in training on SR use in the development of vaccination recommendations. Our survey gathered information on evidence use and training needs. Survey results serve as a starting point to improve support of NITAGs in developing recommendations.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24012209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126538; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85209591764&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39571357; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264410X24012209; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126538
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know