Skip to main content

Table 3 Excluded studies with reasons

From: Effect of mobile text message reminders on routine childhood vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

S. no. Authors (year) Reasons for exclusion
1 Li Chen (2016) The intervention was EPI application and text reminder sent for both groups
2 Wakadha et al. (2013) It was a feasibility study with no comparison group of standard care
3 Uddin et al. (2016) It was quasi-experimental study where the outcome was measured pre and post intervention in both groups
4 Schlumberger et al. (2015) The abstract was in English but full document was in French. Though the author was contacted but unable to get the English version of the full text
5 Abramson et al. (1995) Interventions were reminder cards and phone calls
6 Morgan et al. (1998) Interventions were telephone call and mailed reminders
7 Aragones et al. (2015) Population includes children above 5 years of age
8 Bjornson et al. (1999) Interventions were mailed reminders
9 Kempe et al. (2015) It was a pragmatic trial with interventions mail and autodialed telephone calls
10 Stockwell et al. (2015) Population extends above 5 years (6 months up to 8 years) with no disaggregation for under-five children
11 Zhou-Chen et al. (2008) Outcome was improving attendance rates at a health promotion center
12 Macknin et al. (2000) Population extends beyond under 5 years (0–18 years) and no separate data for children
13 Sther–Geen et al. (1993) Interventions were voice calls
14 Hofstetter et al. (2015) Population beyond under 5 years (6 months to 17 years) with educational and interactive messages
15 Lieu et al. (1998) The study did not randomize patients to no intervention group
16 Dombkowski et al. (2014) Intervention was mailed recall and reminder
17 O’Leary et al. (2015) Population was adolescents without under-five children
18 Irigoyen et al. (2000) Interventions were phone calls and post card reminders