Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10221941›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999

Pertussis vaccination and wheezing illnesses in young children: prospective cohort study. The Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood Team.

J Henderson, K North, M Griffiths, I Harvey, J Golding

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Too clean, or not too clean: the hygiene hypothesis and home hygiene.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2006
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Vaccination and allergic disease: a birth cohort study.American journal of public health · 2004
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Is the hygiene hypothesis an example of hormesis?Nonlinearity in biology, toxicology, medicine · 2003
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J HendersonFoundation for the Study of Infant Deaths Unit, Institute of Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8BJ. a.j.henderson@bris.ac.uk
K North
M Griffiths
I Harvey
J Golding
St. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the relation between pertussis vaccination and the prevalence of wheezing illnesses in young children.

designProspective cohort study.

settingThree former health districts comprising Avon Health Authority. SUBJECTS: 9444 of 14 138 children enrolled in the Avon longitudinal study of pregnancy and childhood and for whom data on wheezing symptoms, vaccination status, and 15 environmental and biological variables were available.

main outcome measuresEpisodes of wheezing from birth to 6 months, 7-18 months, 19-30 months, and 31-42 months. These time periods were used to derive five categories of wheezing illness: early wheezing (not after 18 months); late onset wheezing (after 18 months); persistent wheezing (at every time period); recurrent wheezing (any combination of two or more episodes for each period); and intermittent wheezing (any combination of single episodes of reported wheezing). These categories were stratified according to parental self reported asthma or allergy.

resultsUnadjusted comparisons of the defined wheezing illnesses in vaccinated and non-vaccinated children showed no significant association between pertussis vaccination and any of the wheezing outcomes regardless of stratification for parental asthma or allergy. Wheeze was more common in non-vaccinated children at 18 months, and there was a tendency for late onset wheezing to be associated with non-vaccination in children whose parents did not have asthma, but this was not significant. After adjustment for environmental and biological variables, logistic regression analyses showed no significant increased relative risk for any of the wheezing outcomes in vaccinated children: early wheezing (0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.23), late onset wheezing (0.85, 0.69 to 1.05), persistent wheezing (0.91, 0.47 to 1.79), recurrent wheezing (0.96, 0.72 to 1.26), and intermittent wheezing (1.06, 0.81 to 1.37).

conclusionsNo evidence was found that pertussis vaccination increases the risk of wheezing illnesses in young children. Further follow up of this population with objective measurement of allergy and bronchial responsiveness is planned to confirm these observations.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesPertussis VaccineProspective StudiesRecurrenceRegression AnalysisRespiratory SoundsRisk FactorsPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID10221941
PMCPMC27852
OpenAlexW2006524525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.