Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796628›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

V Demicheli, D Rivetti, J J Deeks, T O Jefferson

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Influenza vaccines.Vaccine · 2009
    Review
  6. Pandemic influenza vaccines.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2009
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Mass influenza vaccination in Ontario: is it worthwhile?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2001
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

V DemicheliSERVIZIO SOVRAZONALE DI EPIDEMIOLOGIA, ASL 20, VIA S.CATERINA 30, 15100 ALESSANDRIA, PIEMONTE, ITALY, 15100. epidemi@tin.it
D Rivetti
J J Deeks
T O Jefferson
Azienda Sanitaria Locale Alessandria · ITCochrane · GBNational Institute of Health Sciences · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines on influenza in healthy adults. To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing cases of influenza in healthy adults. To estimate the frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE was searched using the strategy of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. The bibliography of retrieved articles, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), and EMBASE (1990 to 1997) were also searched. Handsearch of the journal Vaccine from its first issue to the end of 1997 (Jefferson and Jefferson, 1996; Jefferson, 1998). We wrote to vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing influenza vaccines in humans with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention, or comparing types, doses or schedules of influenza vaccine. Live, attenuated or killed vaccines or fractions thereof administered by any route, irrespective of antigenic configuration were considered. Only studies assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 14 to 60 (irrespective of influenza immune status) were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both clinically defined cases and serologically confirmed cases of influenza were considered as outcomes according to the authors' definitions. Time off work, complication and hospitalisation rates were considered, together with adverse effects. Vaccine schedules were analysed including one component matching the recommended vaccine (WHO or government recommendations) for the year of the study, and whether they matched the circulating viral subtypes. MAIN

resultsThe recommended live aerosol vaccines reduced the number of cases of serologically confirmed influenza A by 48% (95% confidence interval 24% to 64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines had a vaccine efficacy of 68% (95% confidence interval 49% to 79%). The vaccines were less effective in reducing clinical influenza cases, with efficacies of 13% and 24% respectively. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work, but only by 0.4 days for each influenza episode (95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.8 days). Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsInfluenza vaccines are effective in reducing serologically confirmed cases of influenza A. However, they are not as effective in reducing cases of clinical influenza. The use of WHO recommended vaccines appears to enhance their effectiveness in practice.

Indexed as

AdultHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID10796628
OpenAlexW4245035349

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.