根据 PubMed 数据库中的科学文章,采用系统回顾法确定新型冠状病毒病 (COVID-19) 疫苗的敏感性。

IF 0.8 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Alperen Ergün, Ayşegül Bekar, Bedran Aras, Canan Dere, Doğukan Tekneci, Gamze Sarıçiçek, Selin Naz Akdere, Semi Telli, Şamil Berkay Pehlivanlı, Deren Özyurek Ucael, Mustafa Enes Özden, Ercüment Altıntaş, Dilek Aslan
{"title":"根据 PubMed 数据库中的科学文章,采用系统回顾法确定新型冠状病毒病 (COVID-19) 疫苗的敏感性。","authors":"Alperen Ergün, Ayşegül Bekar, Bedran Aras, Canan Dere, Doğukan Tekneci, Gamze Sarıçiçek, Selin Naz Akdere, Semi Telli, Şamil Berkay Pehlivanlı, Deren Özyurek Ucael, Mustafa Enes Özden, Ercüment Altıntaş, Dilek Aslan","doi":"10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2022.21082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Publications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about \"vaccine hesitancy\" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as \"cross-sectional,\" \"case-control,\" and \"cohort\" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention \"vaccine.\" While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword \"COVID-19\" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is \"vaccine hesitancy\" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by \"vaccine\" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":37452,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Thoracic Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"70-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b2/49/ttj-23-1-70.PMC9450048.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on the Scientific Articles in PubMed Database.\",\"authors\":\"Alperen Ergün, Ayşegül Bekar, Bedran Aras, Canan Dere, Doğukan Tekneci, Gamze Sarıçiçek, Selin Naz Akdere, Semi Telli, Şamil Berkay Pehlivanlı, Deren Özyurek Ucael, Mustafa Enes Özden, Ercüment Altıntaş, Dilek Aslan\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2022.21082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Publications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about \\\"vaccine hesitancy\\\" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as \\\"cross-sectional,\\\" \\\"case-control,\\\" and \\\"cohort\\\" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention \\\"vaccine.\\\" While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword \\\"COVID-19\\\" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is \\\"vaccine hesitancy\\\" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by \\\"vaccine\\\" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37452,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Thoracic Journal\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"70-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b2/49/ttj-23-1-70.PMC9450048.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Thoracic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2022.21082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Thoracic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2022.21082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:科学文献中有关疫苗犹豫不决和 2019 年新型冠状病毒疾病的文章与日俱增。对其内容进行研究将有助于通过科学方法消除现有的与疫苗接种犹豫相关的负面情绪。因此,可以在全球范围内形成预防接种犹豫的系统方法。本文旨在调查已公布 MeSH 标准的 PubMed 上有关新型冠状病毒疾病 "疫苗犹豫 "的文章是如何论述疫苗犹豫的;了解它们对预防疫苗犹豫的建议;根据《加强流行病学观察性研究报告》标准评估任何被描述为 "横断面"、"病例对照 "和 "队列 "的相关研究;并为当前有关该主题的文献做出贡献:本研究计划采用系统综述的形式,并使用 STROBE 检查表对从 PubMed 数据库中获取的文章进行评估。数据计算工具为 Microsoft Excel:在本研究范围内调查的 80 篇文章中,有 65 篇(81.3%)提到了 "疫苗"。64篇文章(80%)讨论了疫苗犹豫不决的判断,57篇文章(71.3%)讨论了疫苗犹豫不决的预防。61篇文章(79.2%)使用了关键词 "COVID-19"。使用频率第二高的关键词是 "疫苗犹豫"(37 篇,48.1%),其次是 "疫苗"(25 篇,32.5%)。29篇(48%)评论文章来自世卫组织美洲大陆。第二大研究地区是欧洲地区(21 篇,占 35%),其次是东南亚地区(5 篇,占 8%):本研究说明了 2019 年冠状病毒疾病疫苗的近况,并揭示了疫苗犹豫不决的存在。疫苗接种犹豫是一个风险因素,可能会阻碍群体免疫。科学文章的系统性审查应继续改进,以解决本研究中的问题。建议在类似研究中使用其他核对表以及 STROBE 核对表,以便得出更客观的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on the Scientific Articles in PubMed Database.

Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on the Scientific Articles in PubMed Database.

Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on the Scientific Articles in PubMed Database.

Objective: Publications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about "vaccine hesitancy" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as "cross-sectional," "case-control," and "cohort" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject.

Material and methods: This study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool.

Results: Sixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention "vaccine." While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword "COVID-19" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is "vaccine hesitancy" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by "vaccine" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%).

Conclusion: This study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Turkish Thoracic Journal
Turkish Thoracic Journal Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: Turkish Thoracic Journal (Turk Thorac J) is the double-blind, peer-reviewed, open access, international publication organ of Turkish Thoracic Society. The journal is a quarterly publication, published on January, April, July, and October and its publication language is English. Turkish Thoracic Journal started its publication life following the merger of two journals which were published under the titles “Turkish Respiratory Journal” and “Toraks Journal” until 2007. Archives of both journals were passed on to the Turkish Thoracic Journal. The aim of the journal is to convey scientific developments and to create a dynamic discussion platform about pulmonary diseases. With this intent, the journal accepts articles from all related scientific areas that address adult and pediatric pulmonary diseases, as well as thoracic imaging, environmental and occupational disorders, intensive care, sleep disorders and thoracic surgery. Clinical and research articles, reviews, statements of agreement or disagreement on controversial issues, national and international consensus reports, abstracts and comments of important international articles, interesting case reports, writings related to clinical and practical applications, letters to the editor, and editorials are accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信