Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10398671›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews1999

Intranasal antibody prophylaxis for protection against viral disease.

R Weltzin, T P Monath

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

R WeltzinOraVax, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA. rweltzin@oravax.com
T P Monath

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For more than a century, antibody has been used for passive parenteral immunization against viral and bacterial pathogens. This approach has been successful for prevention of viral respiratory infection and has led to testing of intranasal or aerosol delivery of antibody to passively immunize the respiratory tract mucosal surface. Mucosal delivery may be advantageous because it allows the antibody to neutralize the virus particles before they initiate infection and because it concentrates the antibody where viral replication takes place. Animal studies have shown the feasibility of passive intranasal immunization against a number of respiratory tract viruses. Development of nasal antibody treatments for humans is under way, and early clinical studies have confirmed that this approach is safe and can be used to prevent respiratory tract disease. Polyclonal human immunoglobulin from pooled plasma preparations can be used to provide broad protection against a number of different pathogens, while monoclonal antibodies or their fragments can be used to target specific viruses.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, ViralDisease Models, AnimalHumansImmunization, PassiveImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GInfluenza, HumanRespiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsRespiratory SystemRespiratory Tract InfectionsRespirovirus InfectionsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin G

Identifiers

PMID10398671
PMCPMC100244

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.