Cited by 34Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyIntramuscular injections and effectsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes

Smith, Michael J., Woods, Charles R.·2010·Pediatrics

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether children who received recommended vaccines on time during the first year of life had different neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years of age as compared with children with delayed receipt or nonreceipt of these vaccines. Methods Publicly available data, including age at vaccination, from a previous VaccineSafety Datalink study of thimerosal exposure and 42 neuropsychological outcomes were analyzed. Vaccine receipt was defined as timely when each vaccine was received within 30 days of the recommended age. Associations between timeliness and each outcome were tested in univariate analyses. Multivariable regression models were constructed for further assessment of the impact of timeliness on neuropsychological outcomes after adjustment for potential confounders. Secondary analyses were performed on a subset of children with the highest and lowest vaccine exposures during the first 7 months of life. Results Timely vaccination was associated with better performance on 12 outcomes in univariate testing and remained associated with better performance for 2 outcomes in multivariable analyses. No statistically significant differences favored delayed receipt. In secondary analyses, children with the greatest vaccine exposure during the first 7 months of life performed better than children with the least vaccine exposure on 15 outcomes in univariate testing; these differences did not persist in multivariable analyses. No statistically significant di…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2009-2489

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No difference has been demonstrated in neuropsychological outcomes between children who received vaccines on time in the first year of life and those on delayed schedules.

    “nor has a difference been demonstrated in neuropsychological outcomes in those who received vaccines on time in the first year of life compared to delayed schedules (Smith and Woods, 2010).”

    From Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Woods, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, M. J., & Woods, C. R.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Michael J.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2010-06-01
Volume
125
Issue
6
Pages
1134-1141
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2162067829
Cited by
34
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
timely vaccination, infant immunization, vaccination timeliness, delayed vaccination, neuropsychological outcomes, child cognitive development, vaccine safety, thimerosal, childhood immunization schedule
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Immunization Schedule, Infant, Male, Mental Processes, Neuropsychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Safety, Time Factors, Vaccination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review