ReviewDigital health
Digital interventions to promote vaccine uptake among older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of an AI-powered system for vaccination screening, monitoring, and management in adults aged 50 and above.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of digital intervention on improving routine vaccination in the elderly and to conduct a comparative analysis of different intervention modalities using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and WanFang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using digital interventions to promote vaccination in older populations from inception to 15 June 2024. We performed a final update of the literature search in May 2025; no additional eligible studies were identified. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and an NMA was performed using RevMan 5.4 and R Studio, PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024527483. Results: Eleven RCTs were included. The traditional meta-analysis demonstrated a small but statistically significant increase in influenza vaccination rates ( Conclusion: Digital interventions show a significant, yet highly heterogeneous, positive impact on vaccination rates in older adults. While video-based education showed the highest ranking probability, the current evidence is insufficient to conclude that any specific digital modality is statistically superior to others. Due to the limited included studies, the findings need to be supplemented by more high-quality studies. Future research should focus on newer digital technologies to help the older population keep up with the "digital intelligence era."
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.