Reply to "HPV vaccine requirements, opt-outs and providers' support: Key studies missing from a recent systematic review".

Clicks: 248
ID: 4339
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #25 of 39 articles by views in human vaccines & immunotherapeutics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The peer-review process represents a crucial step in improving quality of published research. Nevertheless, after it there could be room for further improvements. In this case, concerns about the sensitivity and sensibility of the search strategy used in a recently published review were raised. With this letter we address the issues raised, being aware, as stated in the paper that "The results of the review could serve as a starting point for further studies analysing these aspects". In light of this, the present paper could be the opportunity to start a cooperation to better assess the parents' attitudes towards HPV vaccine requirements.
Reference Key
gualano2019replyhuman Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Gualano, Maria Rosaria;Voglino, Gianluca;Siliquini, Roberta;
Journal human vaccines & immunotherapeutics
Year 2019
DOI
10.1080/21645515.2019.1651001
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.