Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11038265›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2000

Are the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines effective? Meta-analysis of the prospective trials.

R A Moore, P J Wiffen, B A Lipsky

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2009
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pneumococcal vaccine for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

R A MoorePain Research and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals, The Churchill Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK. andrew.moore@pru.ox.ac.uk
P J Wiffen
B A Lipsky
Churchill Hospital · GBVA Puget Sound Health Care System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to review the evidence of effectiveness of the polyvalent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine from prospective properly randomised controlled trials comparing pneumococcal vaccines with placebo in subjects who are immunocompetent and those likely to have an impaired immune system. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, (issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966-August 2000), PubMed (to August 2000) and EMBASE ( to August 2000). Reference lists of reports and reviews were also searched. To be included in the analysis, a study had to have been a prospective randomised comparison of a polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (any valency) and to have a placebo or no treatment comparison group. Papers had to report important clinical outcomes, such as rates of pneumonia, pneumococcal pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, pneumonia deaths or bacteraemia. Serological outcomes were not sought. Thirteen randomised comparisons with over 45,000 subjects were identified in an extensive literature review. Eight studies had a quality score of 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. In three comparisons with 21,152 immunocompetent subjects (South African gold miners, New Guinea highlanders) pneumococcal vaccination was effective in reducing the incidence of all-cause pneumonia (relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.66), pneumococcal pneumonia (0.16; 0.11 to 0.23), pneumonia deaths (0.70; 0.50 to 0.96) and bacteraemia (0.18; 0.09 to 0.34). In ten comparisons in over 24,000 people who were elderly or likely to have impaired immune systems, pneumococcal vaccination was without effect for any outcome. Present guidelines recommend pneumococcal vaccination for "high-risk" groups. There is no evidence from randomised trials that this is of any benefit.

Indexed as

BacteremiaHumansImmunocompetenceImmunocompromised HostPneumococcal VaccinesPneumoniaPneumonia, PneumococcalProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Tract InfectionsRisk FactorsPneumococcal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID11038265
PMCPMC29074
OpenAlexW1528683178

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.