Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ BMJarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
BMJ
Article
Data sources: UnpayWall
BMJ
Article . 2001 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
BMJ
Other literature type . 2001
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

MMR vaccine: the continuing saga

Authors: D, Elliman; H, Bedford;

MMR vaccine: the continuing saga

Abstract

The current low uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in some parts of the United Kingdom has led to well publicised concerns about the potential for measles outbreaks among primary school entrants. This has coincided with prepublication publicity last week of a paper casting doubts on the adequacy of the evidence which secured the licence for MMR vaccine.1 Understandably some parents and health professionals are confused and anxious and, in an effort to protect their children against measles, have sought single antigen vaccines. We have reviewed the latest developments in this saga and are convinced that such confusion and anxiety about MMR vaccine are unfounded. The authors of the paper, Wakefield and Montgomery, imply that they have examined all the safety data relating to the licensing of the vaccine1 in the early 1970s (1971 in US and 1972 in UK, not 1975 and 1988 as they say). Although this is their aim, in support of their concerns they also cite studies that postdate the award of licences. Therefore it is surprising that they do not mention the classical Finnish double blind placebo controlled trial among twins.2 This was a rigorous study which reported a low incidence of side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms. The omission of this important study casts doubt on the completeness and impartiality of their review. The authors pay …

Keywords

Parents, Evidence-Based Medicine, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Preschool, Vaccination, Humans, Infant, Attitude to Health, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine, United Kingdom

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    39
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
39
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
bronze