ABSTRACT
The peer-review process represents a crucial step in improving the 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 analyzing these aspects”. In light of this, the present paper could be the opportunity to start cooperation to better assess the parents’ attitudes towards HPV vaccine requirements.
KEYWORDS: Reply letter, HPV, review, mandatory vaccination
First, we would like to thank the colleagues for giving us the opportunity to address the issue raised in their Letter to the Editor. In fact, we strongly believe in cooperation in the scientific and academic community. Our aim is to provide the strongest evidence to support decisions in the policy-making agenda. The peer-review process represents a crucial step to raise the quality and validity of individual articles and of the journals that publish them. Nevertheless, after the peer-review process, there could be room for further improvements.
In this particular case, the colleagues raised some concerns on a specific, although considerable, step of the entire review process. In particular, they concerned about the terms used for the search and, thereby, on the sensitivity and sensibility of the search strategy we formulated. It has to be stated that the paper we are discussing was written after Editor invitation considering a previous national survey coordinated by our Institution.1 We were required to write specifically on mandatory vaccination and therefore we focused on the terms “compulsory” and “mandatory”, not including “requirements” “policy” or “law” in our search strategies. Recognizing the differences the colleagues highlighted among the terms, we decided to choose specific words to be included in the search strategy and we were aware that this choice could represent a limitation in the generalizability of the results. Secondly, concerns about the non-use of synonyms or alternative forms/spelling were raised. It has to be stated that running different search strategies with variation only for the use of synonyms or alternative forms/spelling highlighted a high level of concordance and therefore it sounds quite unlikely that we “omitted at least half of the relevant articles in this area”, as stated in the letter, for this reason. Nevertheless, every paper presents some limitations and we are aware, as stated in the paper that “The results of the review could serve as a starting point for further studies analyzing these aspects.”2
Ultimately, we appreciated the criticism leveled. Through their Letter to the Editor, they brought to light more studies on providers’ support to HPV vaccine requirements, broadening the framework. We hope that this could be the trigger to combine efforts, representing the beginning of an international cooperation to investigate more in-depth this topic.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
References
- 1.Gualano MR, Bert F, Voglino G, Buttinelli E, D’Errico MM, De Waure C, Di Giovanni P, Fantini MP, Giuliani AR, Marranzano M, et al.. Attitudes towards compulsory vaccination in Italy: results from the NAVIDAD multicentre study. Vaccine. 2018. May 31;36(23):3368–74. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gualano MR, Olivero E, Voglino G, Corezzi M, Rossello P, Vicentini C, Bert F, Siliquini R.. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards compulsory vaccination: a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(4):918–31. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1564437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]