Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16687270›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2006

Immunological dysfunction, vaccination and Gulf War illness.

Mark Peakman, Ania Skowera, Matthew Hotopf

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Toxicological assessments of Gulf War veterans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2006
    Review
  13. Reflections on Gulf War illness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2006
    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

3 authors.

Mark PeakmanDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, School of Medicine at Guy's, UK.
Ania Skowera
Matthew Hotopf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One candidate cause of Gulf War illness is vaccination against infectious diseases including medical counter-measures against biological weapons. One influential theory has suggested that such mass-vaccination caused a shift in immune response to a Type 2 cytokine pattern (Th2), which it was suggested was accompanied by a chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness. This article critically appraises this theory. We start by examining epidemiological evidence, which indicates that single vaccines are unlikely to be a substantial cause of Gulf War illness, but that there was a modest relationship with multiple vaccines, which was strongest in those vaccinated while deployed to the Gulf. These relationships may be affected by recall bias. We conclude by examining the results of immunological studies carried out in veterans or in a relevant setting in vitro. The balance of evidence from immunological studies on veterans returning from the War, including those developing multi-symptom illness, is that the immune response has not become polarized towards Th2. In summary, the epidemiological evidence for a multiple vaccine effect on Gulf War-related illness remains a potentially important aetiological lead, but mechanistic studies available at this stage do not identify any immunological basis for it.

Indexed as

CytokinesGulf WarHistory, 20th CenturyHumansImmune System DiseasesPersian Gulf SyndromeVaccinationCytokines

Identifiers

PMID16687270
PMCPMC1569620

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.