Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15885121›Full record

ReviewImmunology2005

Building better T-cell-inducing malaria vaccines.

Stephen M Todryk, Michael Walther

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Immunology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Stephen M TodrykCentre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. stephen.todryk@ndm.ox.ac.uk
Michael Walther

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since malaria continues to account for millions of deaths annually in endemic regions, the development of an effective vaccine remains highly desirable. The life cycle of malaria poses a number of challenges to the immune response since phases of the cycle express varying antigen profiles and have different locations, thus requiring differing antigenic targets and effector mechanisms. To confer sterile immunity, a vaccine would have to target the pre-erythrocytic stages of infection. Since at this stage the parasite is hidden within liver cells, the host defence predominantly requires cell-mediated immunity, chiefly T cells, to eliminate infected hepatocytes. The development of such vaccines has progressed from irradiated sporozoites, through recombinant proteins, to recombinant DNA and viral vectors. Some of the experimental vaccination regimens that explore various combinations of vaccines for priming and boosting, together with numbers of vaccinations, interval between them, and the vaccination site, are revealing strong immunogenicity and evidence of efficacy in human challenge studies and in field trials. Such approaches should lead to deployable vaccines that protect against malarial disease.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansImmunity, CellularMalaria, FalciparumMalaria VaccinesPlasmodium falciparumT-LymphocytesMalaria Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID15885121
PMCPMC1782139

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.