Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16223953›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2005

Vaccines for tuberculosis: novel concepts and recent progress.

T Mark Doherty, Peter Andersen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Exploration of Pattern Recognition Receptor Agonists as Candidate Adjuvants.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Novel vaccination strategies against tuberculosis.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2014
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Effectiveness of BCG vaccination to aged mice.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2010
    Article
  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.

T Mark DohertyDepartment of Infectious Disease Immunology, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark. TMD@ssi.dk
Peter Andersen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-quarters of a century after the introduction of Mycobacterium bovis BCG, the first tuberculosis vaccine, new vaccines for tuberculosis are finally entering clinical trials. This breakthrough is based not only on advances in proteomics and genomics which have made the construction of new vaccines possible, but also on a greatly expanded knowledge of the immunology of tuberculosis. Here we review our current understanding of how Mycobacterium tuberculosis subverts or survives the host's immune response to cause disease and why the current vaccination strategy, which relies on BCG, is only partially successful in countering the pathogen. This provides a background for describing the new generation of vaccines designed to supplement or replace the current vaccine and the different approaches they take to stimulate immunity against M. tuberculosis.

Indexed as

BCG VaccineImmunization, SecondaryMycobacterium tuberculosisAnimalsAntibody FormationAntigens, BacterialCytokinesTh1 CellsTuberculosisTuberculosis VaccinesVaccinationAntigens, BacterialBCG VaccineCytokinesTuberculosis Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID16223953
PMCPMC1265910

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.