These included clinical medicine, epidemiology, immunology, health economics, health planning,

infectious disease, internal medicine, Selleckchem SB203580 microbiology, nursing, pediatrics, public health, and vaccine research while some also had a community member or an insurance representative. The most commonly reported areas of expertise were infectious disease (n = 5) followed by immunology, microbiology, pediatrics, and public health, which were all represented on four of the nine committees. Nine of the 14 NITAGs had a defined number of meetings, of which the majority (n = 5) met three times per year [24], [25], [32], [33], [34] and [37]. The highest number of meetings per year was reportedly

held by the NITAG in France which met six to eight times per year [32], while the NITAG in Germany met only twice a year [32]. Six of the NITAGs held closed, confidential meetings (Austria, Canada, France, Ireland, Switzerland, the UK) [24], [32] and [34], while only the NITAG in the USA had meetings open to the public [25] and [27]. Of the eight countries which reported taking meeting minutes, half of the countries published them on the internet (Australia, Canada, the UK, the USA) [24], [25], [33], [34], [36] and [37] and the other half did not publish them (Austria, France, Ireland, Switzerland) [32]. Information was given on the use of evidence in 8 of the 14 NITAGs (Table 2). Australia mentioned using evidence but did not offer further information Epigenetic inhibitor [10], [13] and [33]. The NITAGs in Brazil [5], Canada [34] and [38], and the UK [36] conduct

a literature review prior to making recommendations. It was reported that the NITAG in Canada [34] and [38], the UK [36], and the USA [25] appraise the quality and validity of the evidence to determine if it is strong enough to justify a recommendation in their Adenosine countries. Canada [34] and [38] and the USA [25] reported grading the evidence, while the UK’s method was not specifically reported [36]. Details about the publication of NITAG recommendations are given for nine countries. While Australia [33], Austria [32], Germany [32], and the UK [24] and [36] produce an annual report or annual national immunization booklets including the recommendations of the NITAG that were accepted by the government, France and Ireland [32] publish their guidelines every second year in a report. Austria, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA publish their recommendations online [24], [25], [32], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. This systematic review is the first known attempt to retrieve and summarize information published about the processes of immunization policy making at a national level.