Thread by @noelTbrewer

Search terms matter. A review missed a lot of the research on support for HPV vaccine school entry requirements because they used only pejorative search terms like "mandates". My first thread.
1/n

This new "systematic review" looked only for pejorative terms for HPV vaccine school requirements: “compulsory AND vaccination” OR “mandatory AND vaccination”.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
2/

They did not search for "vaccine requirements." Many of us don't use the term "mandates" because it presumes that the policy is problematic/has a negative connotation.
3/

A quick search finds they missed 2705 papers in Pubmed. I looked for my term and removed what they found: ((vaccine OR vaccination) AND requirements NOT ((compulsory AND vaccination) OR (mandatory AND vaccination))
Don't get me started about "immunization" etc.
4

Four of the missing papers are mine, so here they are.
5/

"...half (47%) of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV immunization for school attendance “are a good idea” when opt-out provisions were not mentioned. Far more agreed that “these laws are okay only if parents can opt out if they want to” (84%)" tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.41…
6/

"Overall, 21% of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance “are a good idea,” and 54% disagreed. If school-entry requirements included opt-out provisions, agreement increased to 57%, and only 21% disagreed."
cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/9/1…
7/

"Overall, 59% of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance 'are a good idea.' "
cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/20/7/1…
8/

"The majority of physicians (74%) supported some form of school-entry requirements, with or without optout provisions. When opt-out provisions were not specified, 47% agreed that laws requiring HPV
vaccination for school attendance were a 'good idea.'"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
9/

The editor-in-chief agrees that the paper missed important information. Letter to the editor, incoming.
10/