ArticleBMC public health2024
Prioritizing vaccine introduction to China's National Immunization Program: a multi-criteria decision analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Economic evaluation of national immunization program vaccines in China: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Adverse Events FollowingVaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo prioritize the introducing of new vaccines into China's National Immunization Program (NIP) among 10 candidate vaccines across four classes.
methodsWe developed a vaccine value framework using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to simulate the introduction of new vaccines into NIP, covering 21 criteria encompassing six dimensions: safety, effectiveness, economy, innovation, accessibility, and appropriateness. Two decision scenarios were considered: Scenario One prioritized the four classes of vaccines, while Scenario Two identified specific vaccines within each class.
resultsIn the vaccine value framework, safety received the highest weight, while innovation received the lowest. The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was identified as a top priority for inclusion in NIP, followed by Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV), Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB), and Rotavirus (RV) vaccines. The specific types are domestic bivalent HPV vaccine, imported 13-valent PCV vaccine, domestic HIB vaccine, and domestic RV vaccine. The results of the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated robustness.
conclusionsThis study provides a transparent, comprehensive, and quantifiable vaccine value framework to aid decision-making for introducing new vaccines into China's NIP. According to the MCDA results, HPV should be considered the top vaccine candidate for the NIP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.