<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="style/detail_T.xsl"?>
<bibitem type="J">   <ARLID>0565799</ARLID> <utime>20240103231038.2</utime><mtime>20221221235959.9</mtime>   <SCOPUS>85138447693</SCOPUS> <WOS>000824848900001</WOS>  <DOI>10.1093/infdis/jiac259</DOI>           <title language="eng" primary="1">Response to Beran et al</title>  <specification> <page_count>2 s.</page_count> <media_type>P</media_type> </specification>   <serial><ARLID>cav_un_epca*0253827</ARLID><ISSN>0022-1899</ISSN><title>Journal of Infectious Diseases</title><part_num/><part_title/><volume_id>226</volume_id><volume>5 (2022)</volume><page_num>944-945</page_num><publisher><place/><name>Oxford University Press</name><year/></publisher></serial>    <keyword>vaccination</keyword>   <keyword>booster dose effectiveness</keyword>   <keyword>Letter to the Editor</keyword>    <author primary="1"> <ARLID>cav_un_auth*0101206</ARLID> <name1>Šmíd</name1> <name2>Martin</name2> <institution>UTIA-B</institution> <full_dept language="cz">Ekonometrie</full_dept> <full_dept language="eng">Department of Econometrics</full_dept> <department language="cz">E</department> <department language="eng">E</department>  <garant>K</garant> <fullinstit>Ústav teorie informace a automatizace AV ČR, v. v. i.</fullinstit> </author> <author primary="0"> <ARLID>cav_un_auth*0270143</ARLID> <name1>Berec</name1> <name2>L.</name2> <country>CZ</country> </author> <author primary="0"> <ARLID>cav_un_auth*0091778</ARLID> <name1>Trnka</name1> <name2>J.</name2> <country>CZ</country> </author>   <source> <url>http://library.utia.cas.cz/separaty/2022/E/smid-0565799.pdf</url> </source>         <cas_special>  <abstract language="eng" primary="1">We read the letter by Beran et al [1] and welcome the opportunity to address all the points raised. The authors consider our article [2] to be “promoting the need of vaccination and inflating the booster dose effectiveness,” and they support this claim by several arguments questioning our methods. Our view, however, is that our methods are standard, previously used [3], and certainly not tailor made for vaccination and all their details are clearly described.</abstract>     <result_subspec>WOS</result_subspec> <RIV>BC</RIV> <FORD0>10000</FORD0> <FORD1>10100</FORD1> <FORD2>10102</FORD2>   <reportyear>2023</reportyear>      <num_of_auth>3</num_of_auth>  <inst_support> RVO:67985556 </inst_support>  <permalink>https://hdl.handle.net/11104/0337919</permalink>   <confidential>S</confidential>  <unknown tag="mrcbC91"> C </unknown>         <unknown tag="mrcbT16-e">INFECTIOUSDISEASES|MICROBIOLOGY|IMMUNOLOGY</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-f">5.4</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-g">2.7</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-h">9.5</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-i">0.05666</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-j">2.208</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-k">49684</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-s">2.386</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-5">6.200</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-6">539</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-7">Q1</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-C">79</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-D">Q1</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-E">Q1*</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-M">1.34</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-N">Q1</unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbT16-P">82.6</unknown> <arlyear>2022</arlyear>       <unknown tag="mrcbU14"> 85138447693 SCOPUS </unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbU24"> PUBMED </unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbU34"> 000824848900001 WOS </unknown> <unknown tag="mrcbU63"> cav_un_epca*0253827 Journal of Infectious Diseases 0022-1899 1537-6613 Roč. 226 č. 5 2022 944 945 Oxford University Press </unknown> </cas_special> </bibitem>